1981-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the former B.C. Liberal leader has now firmly and publicly rejected the Liberal government's constitutional proposal when he said, "The current approach to patriation is unilateral partisan confrontation, without any regional consensus and making quite improper use of vestigial colonial ties" and in view of the news report in British Columbia indicating that the Liberal government feels that Dave Barrett's support is more important than Gordon Gibson's, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That the Minister of Justice make a statement on motions indicating whether the Liberal government has now rejected all western Liberal Party leaders and that the Prime Minister indicate in the same way whether or not he values western NDP support more than western Liberal support.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Due to the fact that the ministers responsible for the distribution of government funding for programs such as the manufacturing tax incentive program and the Canada community development program refuse to recognize that all citizens of New Brunswick should be equal rather than just those in constituencies represented by Liberals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the political minister responsible for New Brunswick, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, intercede with his cabinet colleagues and advise them that New Brunswickers living in ridings represented by Conservatives are in fact not second-class citizens.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since the CBC dispute has been dragging on far too long, and since this intolerable situation is due to the management's refusal to make reasonable offers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the federal government take all necessary steps to urge the CBC management to bargain in good faith and be in a position to make serious proposals.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY TAX CREDIT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Liberal government was elected in February, 1980-

March 17, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: -largely on a promise to keep down consumer energy prices. In view of the fact that since then the price of regular and unleaded gasoline in the Atlantic provinces has soared by about 41 cents a gallon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House condemns the government for breaking its major election promise, and in particular for not introducing an energy tax credit to cushion the effects of those increases on low and middle-income Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That this House commend the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has served notice that the provinces must spend money voted by this Parliament as enacted and urges the government to pursue this policy in its federal-provincial financial negotiations in the next year.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion of some urgency to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It will be of interest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and, I hope, the whole House generally.
While recognizing the need for the government to prevent foreign flag ships from taking advantage of the low domestic price for fuel in Canada, this policy has, as the minister is aware, singled out DMA members who are registered Canadian companies as the lone segment of Canadian industry required to pay world fuel prices for international trade. This will result in an additional $30 million in costs, encouraging our shippers to use less fuel-efficient modes of transport and having a detrimental impact particularly on the Quebec-
Labrador mining industry, as well as forcing grain cargo route diversions.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to introduce a two-price fuel system for Bunker C and diesel fuels which would not violate international agreements relating to marine transportation and would provide equity to the Canadian marine industry.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The annual report for 1980 of the Bank of Canada indicates that the deficit for the Government of Canada is uncomfortably large. That is one of the reasons offered for the monetary policy followed by the bank not working to control inflation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Roy-al (Mr. Corbett):
That in view of the escalating inflation rate and the fact that the government's fiscal policy is not appropriate for reducing inflation, the government forthwith present to this House a new budget and file in this House new estimates reducing the over-all level of government expense in order to deal realistically with inflation.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the Tory critic responsible for the status of men, I am appalled by the failure of the Liberal government to ensure that men will be offered equality under the proposed charter of rights. Since women already have the protection of the courts, which have ruled that women are equal persons, and since men have never been awarded similar protection as persons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House instruct the government to amend the proposed charter of rights to state that the provisions of the charter apply equally to women and men
March 17, 1981

and thus ensure that the rights of this important minority group are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
Some lion. Members: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. There has been a rapidly increasing number of mergers going on within the Canadian economy. It was in the order of one thousand over the last three years. That is grossly underestimated in terms of the assets and the numbers involved, because the government obtains its information only by clipping files out of the newspapers. This country more and more is beginning to resemble a banana republic in which the economy is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families, such as the Bronfmans, the Irvings, the Westons, and so forth.
I move:
That the minister urge the government to pass regulations requiring any person wishing to proceed with a merger or takeover of a Canadian business to give the government written notice in advance of his intentions in these matters.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, but first I will say "top o' the afternoon" to him, or "top o' the gallows"-one or the other-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: The annual report of the Bank of Canada for 1980 was made public yesterday. It reviews the experience of the last five years in fighting inflation in Canada and concludes by saying "we have made only limited progress". The report concludes that the lack of success was not due to the fact that the government's anti-inflationary fiscal or financial policies were ill conceived, but rather because they were pursued with gradualism. My question to the minister is this. The bank says it will continue these policies, which will mean high interest rates and tight money over the next five years, presumably with his approval. Likely this will mean that inflation and high interest rates will continue, unless there is a new fiscal approach by the government, because until now the minister's approach has been one of gradualism. Will the minister adopt a new fiscal approach to correspond with the approach of the Bank of Canada and, if so, what will that approach be?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, if I understood the comments of the Governor of the Bank of Canada when he spoke about gradualism, he was speaking about the application of monetary policy. What I have laid out in the budget is an approach which will reduce the budget over time, and that is the policy I propose to follow. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that the governor himself said in his annual report that he was pleased that in the last budget the government recognized the need to reduce its over-all deficit in the years ahead. I find that support from the Governor encouraging. I wish it were equally strong from all sections of the House of Commons.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the governor is certainly an optimist if he is pleased with that pious expression of the minister's. It is the action that counts, not the pious expression of principle.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR HOME OWNERS
John Carnell Crosbie: Interest rates are 3 per cent higher than they were in March of last year. The minister made this promise last year:
The federal government will consider special assistance to home owners if interest rates soar under the new floating rate approach.
They have soared; they are over 3 per cent higher. In November of 1979 the finance critic, the minister's colleague, said that the Liberals wanted action to prevent the hardship which the high interest policy was creating for millions of Canadians and their families. In view of the fact that interest rates are over 3 per cent higher, is the minister now going to introduce a policy to help alleviate the hardship which these higher interest rates are creating for millions of Canadians? I am not referring to the old age assistance supplement-we know that was increased. I am referring to the home owner, the potential home owner, and the consumer hurt by these high rates.

March 17, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member in his two questions identified the flaw in his approach to this question of inflation. On the one hand he encourages the government to reduce its deficit over time, and in the next question he asks me to bring in a new spending program in order to help a particular group in the community. It is quite impossible for the government to follow restraint in government spending, to control expenditure and to reduce deficit over time, and at the same time to launch new spending programs. There is no magic. The hon. member discovered that when he was minister of finance. That lack of magic is still a fact, even on St. Patrick's Day, when I reciprocate and offer the hon. member "the top o' the night".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the minister was so concerned about expenditure restraint, why did he and his colleagues make these promises? Why did he make his promise of March, 1980, that if interest rates rose higher he would offer special assistance to home owners? The home owners of this country are getting tired of this minister's blarney, not just today which is St. Patrick's Day, but every day of the year.
When will the minister carry out his commitments and reduce expenditures elsewhere? There are many other areas in which to make reductions-ministerial salaries, for example. The deputy governor of the bank is not prepared to forecast future rates of inflation, the value of the Canadian dollar, or whither we are headed. Will the minister now give us a forecast? What is the minister's new forecast of the inflation rate this year, of the Canadian dollar this year, and whether or not these policies will be successful? The deputy governor will not even forecast if they are going to be successful. Will the minister do that? Will he let Canadian people in on it? Does he have faith in these policies? What are his forecasts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the budget of last October I attempted the risky business of forecasting.


John Carnell Crosbie: You sure did.


Miss MacDonald:: And you were all wrong.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Like my hon. friend in his effort at forecasting, I proved not to be 100 per cent correct.


John Carnell Crosbie: You were not correct at all.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact there was a margin of error in the forecasting, because for 1981 I called for an inflation rate of 10.2 per cent. It is obvious, since developments of that time, that the inflation rate will be higher in 1981. We had one year-to-year average a month ago, and the rate was about 12 per cent. So, it is obvious to the hon. member that the inflation rate will be higher than projected in the budget. At the same time I can tell the hon. member that, because of the strong
performance of the economy, the unemployment rate is likely to be less in 1981 than was forecast in the budget. These are the two trends I would like to indicate to the hon. member. I do not intend, like the deputy governor of the bank who has a lot of experience in these matters, to make a precise forecast for 1981 at this stage.


CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that the deputy governor of the bank also said that procrastination will make matters worse.
In his annual report the Governor of the Bank of Canada observed that, besides gradualism, the large deficit run up by the government is a major contributor to the failure of the bank's monetary policies to control inflation. While praising the provincial governments for their restraint, the governor observed the following:
The Government of Canada, however, has experienced a large and growing over-all deficit-
He went on to say:
From the point of view of dealing with inflation, this was an uncomfortably large deficit-
Does the minister accept that view of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and, if so, why is he not doing something about it? Why is he not dramatically and immediately reducing expenditures and the deficit, rather than carrying on this failure of a gradualist approach?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct in citing the comment of the Governor of the bank about the deficits which have been in operation over the last few years. As the hon. member pointed out, the Governor went on to say:
From the point of view of dealing with inflation, this was an uncomfortably large deficit for the Government of Canada to have.
I believe this is the key point-when the level of economic activity relative to the economy's demonstrated capacity was as high as it was then. Looking in retrospect, probably there would be no difficulty in agreeing with that judgment, though at the time the forecasting probably with respect to the rate of economic activity could be as uncertain as we have proved it to be or shown it to be in the last year.
The hon. member referred to that citation. Then he failed to read on when the Governor of the bank went on to congratulate the government by saying he was pleased that in the last budget the government recognized the need to reduce its over-all deficit in the years ahead. That is the policy which is being followed, to reduce the deficit substantially over the next several years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is St. Patrick's Day, not April Fool's.
March 17, 1981


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. As the minister may be aware, one of his Liberal predecessors, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, said in his budget of March 31, 1977, "The deficit will be reduced-", His immediate Liberal predecessor, the current Minister of Justice, said in his budget of November 16, 1978, "Significant reductions in the deficit can be expected-"
My question for the minister is very simple. Could he please explain to the House, barring any firm evidence, why we should give his word any more credence than the word of his predecessor was obviously worth, which is absolutely nothing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait and see, and he will have to live long enough, to see that the expenditure plan laid out in the budget will be followed and the deficit reductions proposed in the budget will be followed over the next several years. If he is here three years from now he will be up on St. Patrick's Day probably talking about another subject rather than the deficit.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

In view of the reports which claim, to no one's surprise in the New Democratic Party, that the Canadian public is paying some $56 million extra for health care than they should be, as a result of extra billing, can the minister tell us whether she is now prepared to bring in amendments to the Medical Care Act as recommended by Mr. Justice Hall, to ban extra billing before a bad situation becomes worse and medicare, as we have come to know it, goes down the drain?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am not ready to recommend that course of action to the government at this point in time.
I am pleased to have a chance to state very clearly our position on extra billing. It is no news to Canadians that this government is opposed to any form of extra billing. However, it is a much more difficult thing to reach enough of a consensus between the players to permit them to ban extra billing directly where jurisdiction lies first, which is at the provincial level. If the federal government were to ban extra billing right away, it might easily be challenged in the courts,
Oral Questions
which would not assist anyone in restoring full integrity to medicare.
I agreed with the provincial ministers to work with them toward a consensus with a view for some of them to be able to ban extra billing without losing their doctors to neighbouring provinces, and then for the federal government eventually to include a ban on extra billing in our renegotiation of EPF.


SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDING FROM CERTAIN PROVINCES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the minister's passion for consultation and long answers is well known. But it has now been six months since the Hall report was tabled and no action has been taken at all. The federal-provincial health ministers' conference has been postponed. In the meantime Alberta has passed legislation legitimizing extra billing. British Columbia will be heavily into balance billing as of April 1, and Ontario people continue to be ill-informed about who has opted out and who has not.


Some hon. Members:: What about Saskatchewan?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: How long will the minister procrastinate while medicare suffocates from the violation of its basic principles? Will the minister consider putting her money where her mouth was in two successive election campaigns and threaten in this House, not in the media, to withdraw funding from delinquent provinces? And will she table the documents which support the $56 million claim?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I regret that the relatively new hon. member to this House was absent during the debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Monique Bégin: in March, 1979, when we started fighting for medicare in this House of Commons. He is very late in his judgment. He has not realized that we are improving medicare and that the terrifying description which he has just given is about one year old right now. In this year we have witnessed one province backtracking completely and cancelling all user fees which it had imposed on its population through a budget. That province was New Brunswick.
We have witnessed a number of doctors in Ontario opting into the medicare system again. We are building a consensus toward a common understanding of all the partners, that no extra billing will be acceptable in this country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I may be new here, but the judgment of my colleagues here at the time was right on the mark. We predicted exactly what was going to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 17, 1981
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am tempted to get up and say, "Thank you, mother", for the lecture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The problem is particularly bad in Ontario. Some 71 per cent of the $56 million that we are talking about was spent in Ontario as a result of extra billing. It is now almost impossible to have an operation in Ontario-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that it is almost impossible to have an operation in Ontario without paying money to some specialist or other, and in view of the fact that premiums continue-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That was not a question. I just want to remind the hon. member that when the Chair asks the member to go on with a question, that is exactly what the Chair means. This is not the opportunity for the hon. member to continue with a long preamble. Let us have the question now.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will the minister tell us what she intends to do about premiums, about the recommendation in the Hall report that premiums be abolished, or does she still hold to the safe and comfortable view that this is strictly a provincial concern and not a concern of national health care standards?


Monique Bégin: The hon. member started his line of questioning by asking about the most important problem facing medicare today, namely, extra billing. I suggest that we do not discuss the problem of premiums now, but continue to speak of extra billing.


An hon. Member:: You can't even handle the first one.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member is probably afraid to face the reality, and still wants a flamboyant answer to a subtle situation. What can the minister of health for Saskatchewan who is faced with, if I remember correctly, over $2 million in extra billing, do to ban extra billing if he loses all his doctors and specialists to the neighbouring province that does not want to ban extra billing? That is the problem.
We are facing a problem where Canada, because of its geographic entities, should act as one, moving toward a common front to save medicare for all Canadians. We are working towards that, and will succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but in his
absence I would direct it to the parliamentary secretary. It concerns fishing vessel subsidies. I have been informed that three 65-foot vessels are being built in Caraquet, New Brunswick, for New Brunswick fishermen, at the approximate cost of $900,000 each. Thirty-five per cent, or $945,000 of the cost of these vessels, is being paid by the federal government through its vessel subsidy program. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm whether or not this is true?


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with those three specific vessels that the hon. member brings to the attention of the House. I will check into it. I presume that vessels up to 65 feet in length are eligible for vessel subsidy, and I presume that there will be nothing wrong in subsidizing three vessels in New Brunswick-


An hon. Member:: The fishermen don't get anything-


George Roland Henderson: There will be nothing wrong with subsidizing three vessels in northern New Brunswick, or three vessels in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, or P.E.I.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Malpeque has the floor.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: The parliamentary secretary knows that the minister tries to portray himself as the champion of the inshore fishermen.


Some hon. Members:: He is!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: $945,000 would have provided funding for about 80 inshore fishing boats for the small fishermen. It is quite apparent to me that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is more concerned about himself and his own area than he is about the other-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: My supplementary question is directed to the same parliamentary secretary. What are the department's plans for the vessel subsidy program for the up and coming year, and specifically, how much money will be provided in the budget for the smaller boats for the inshore fishermen?


George Roland Henderson: The hon. member for Malpeque should have shown the same concern when his government was in power, because there were very few vessel subsidies given out-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question, George.


George Roland Henderson: I think about $2 million was in the budget which we inherited last year, and through a number of omnibus bills, and one thing and another, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is the champion of the inshore fishermen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
mp
isr
k]
i
March 17, 1981


George Roland Henderson: -was able to secure more funds for the subsidy program in the last fiscal year.
As I understand it, the minister is reviewing the proposed vessel subsidy program for the coming year, and when that review is complete it will become public information for all members of the House of Commons.


AGRICULTURE
Thomas Michael McMillan: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since, as he will know, all four Atlantic provinces have agreed to participate in the establishment of an Atlantic regional veterinary college, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether, for its part, the federal government will contribute its share of the capital cost of that important project which is badly needed because of the dire shortage of veterinarians, not only in the Atlantic provinces, but right across Canada as well?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: As it happened, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture visited the Atlantic provinces last week. He had a meeting with the Prince Edward Island premier who submitted a project which is now under review, and within a few days the Minister of Agriculture ought to be in a position to make his views known about that study.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the acting minister of agriculture in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. When I asked the Prime Minister whether the government supported the college, he replied that the federal government is ready to support the college if the Atlantic provinces are in agreement with the establishment of the institution.
Now that the four Atlantic provinces have in fact agreed to participate in the establishment of a fourth veterinary college for Canada in the Atlantic region, and in light of the firm commitment we were given by the Prime Minister, will the government honour that commitment and support the college to the tune of something like 50 per cent of the capital cost, an example that was set with the other veterinary colleges across Canada?


Marcel Ostiguy: Madam Speaker, 1 might say to the hon. member opposite that the Government of Canada is prepared to support the construction of a fourth veterinary college, in accordance with the Howell report. Of course, construction has yet to begin simply owing to a misunderstanding among the four Atlantic provinces as to where the college ought to be built.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that U.S. Secretary of State Haig admitted to reporters in Washington on Friday last that the rebel forces in El Salvador were "running out of ammunition," and that he was not as concerned about arms flow via Nicaragua, which he described as having slowed down, can the Prime Minister explain why the Secretary of State for External Affairs, just two days before, bought so completely the argument then being made by Secretary Haig that there was a "massive influx of Cuban and Soviet arms" into El Salvador, creating a "huge imbalance of forces" there?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think that the explanation is quite obvious. When they met, Mr. Haig, the American Secretary of State, took that opportunity to brief the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the new situation.


Pauline Jewett: There were two day's difference, Madam Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how he can explain there having been a huge imbalance of forces, presumably on the Soviet side, in El Salvador on a Wednesday, and no imbalance of forces on a Friday? Will he assure the House that he will now raise his voice against the increasing U.S. military build-up in El Salvador, since if there is any imbalance of forces it is on the U.S. side? Or does the Prime Minister intend to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs continue to be the United States administration's favourite mouthpiece?
[ Translation]


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a period of two days. During his visit to Ottawa last week, the American Secretary of State very simply wanted to indicate that in the previous week-[DOT]


Pauline Jewett: He doesn't give a damn.
[ Translation]


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, he very simply wanted to indicate that as far as he knew, arms shipments from Cuba through the Nicaraguan territory had been reduced in the preceding days.

March 17, 1981
Oral Questions


TRANSPORT
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The agreement between the Atlantic provinces and the federal government with regard to the primary highway strengthening program was terminated in 1980 for Nova Scotia, and will terminate at the end of this month for Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. Has the minister any plans in progress to renegotiate a further agreement to continue the program?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, this is very much the subject of study by the committee on economic affairs of the government at this time.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, as the minister is aware, it is written in the present program that at completion it will be determined whether or not the program is to be continued and whether the federal government will continue to participate. Has the minister conducted an economic viability study and an evaluation of the past program in order to determine future participation and, when it is completed, will the minister table the results in the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my department has analysed the previous use of this program and, generally speaking, has found that the projects that were developed under the program were extremely worthwhile. The provincial departments in the Atlantic provinces have now presented a whole series of new projects, and my department is quite impressed by the quality of these. It is a matter of money, really, and I am finding out if this is available.


PROVINCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. If the minister renews these highway strengthening agreements with the provinces, will he make sure that the federal money will not be used as an excuse by the provinces not to expend a fair share of the provincial budgets on the highways in those areas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will be speaking in the debate this afternoon on this particular subject. The recent studies which have come from the Atlantic provinces, for example from both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, indicate that the priority given to transportation has been going down. In other words, when they look for industrial development, for example, it is considered now, in the studies that I am referring to, that transportation is not a major issue.
An bon. Member: Why don't you twin it, like the Prime Minister says?


SHIPPING
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Some facts have been revealed about the training, or lack of training, by the recent inquiry into the sinking of the scallop dragger Margaret Jane, with the loss of four men when it was involved in a collision with the stern troller Cape Beaver, a few miles outside Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. I should like to ask the minister what steps he is planning to take to ensure that proper training is provided to the captains and crews in the use of navigational aids such as radar, mandatory safety drills on board ship during a voyage, as well as ensuring that in future there will be an adequate compliance by masters and mates with the basic rules of the sea?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I have not seen the result of that inquiry. Usually when such an inquiry is conducted, there are a number of recommendations by the judge or whoever is in charge of it. I will see what the recommendations were, and I am sure that my department will want to comply with them.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, it would appear that I am ahead of the minister, because his department has already provided me with the results of that inquiry. I want to thank the minister for sending me the report because it was very helpful.
With Loran C coming into general use this year, will special stress be placed on training masters and mates of our offshore, mid-water and inshore fleet in its technical fine points? This is something that could be done during refit periods. Will steps be taken to upgrade the requirements for a master's certificate, and will the safety equipment on board ship be inspected more frequently by officials than once a year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am convinced that the hon. member is deeply interested in these matters, and so am I. Unfortunately I do not have this information at my fingertips.
I shall ask for the report from my department and will communicate it to him in the spirit of generosity and friendliness in which I always communicate with the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis
Valley-Hants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WITHDRAWAL OF DART CONTAINERLINE SERVICES FROM HALIFAX-STUDY OF FREIGHT RATE STRUCTURES
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I must say that I appreciate that the handclapping is in honour of my patron saint who was named after me, rather than the other way around. In that spirit of generosity, recog-
March 17, 1981

nizing that there are leprechauns around the world, and perhaps even between the treasury benches and the opposition benches, perhaps I may be able to get the Prime Minister's ear, since he is paying some respect to the patron saint of Ireland.
In view of the controversy over the unilateral move of the Dart Containerline facility from Halifax to Montreal, and the involvement of the CN, a Crown corporation in that move, and in order to amplify what I understood the Minister of Transport to say outside the House, would the Prime Minister direct the Canadian Transport Commission to commence a study now into the imbalance in freight rate structures that, in effect, aggravate this type of situation, so that Atlantic Canada may know that it is being treated fairly, certainly as between the ports of Halifax, Saint John, and other ports in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will be discussing this very issue this afternoon because there is a motion before the House on that subject put down by the opposition. The Premier of Nova Scotia has three opportunities to bring this subject forward in the coming months. First, he can ask for an inquiry by the Canadian Transport Commission under section 23 of the act; second, he can participate in an inquiry which is bound to take place on the acquisition by CP ships of part of the Dart company, under section 27 of the act, and third, should CN decide to increase its share ownership of Dart in coming months, CN will have to go to CTC under section 27 also. So there are two and possibly three opportunities for the Premier of Nova Scotia or his government to bring the subject of freight rates to the attention of Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate, in part, the answer of the minister, since the Prime Minister did not answer a general policy question. That is fine as far as the Premier of Nova Scotia is concerned. But my question is directed to the government and to the minister. Regardless of what avenue the Premier of Nova Scotia takes in this very controversial matter, will the minister lend the weight of his good offices or those of the government, to commencing a study? Will the minister ensure that the appropriate authorities within the scope of the national government have input into that study so that in terms of regulation and policy there is no discrimination as a result of this very unfortunate situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, other hon. members, including the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, have raised this question before. The hon. member wants us to make sure that justice is not only done but appears to be done, and that there is no discrimination against the port of Halifax in matters of freight or general charges. I will be dealing with this question in my speech this afternoon. I promised the premier of Nova Scotia that I would give him a number of statistics and other information, the purpose of which would be to establish a non-discriminatory system of freight rates and port charges.
_______________________________8321
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-QUERY RESPECTING CRITERIA AND FUTURE PLANNING
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his capacity as minister responsible for the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency, and it relates to the herd maintenance program. Given that the minister has been approached by the appeal board and a number of farmers with appeals, as well as some rural organizations and provincial governments, regarding the herd maintenance program, can he give some indication of the improvements to the program that PFRA is prepared to consider and undertake, to do something about the 12,000 appeal applicants? Will he ensure that they will receive some compensation for the huge feed bills to which they have committed themselves, and for which compensation has been rejected?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the criteria of the herd maintenance assistance program. I would first point out that the herd maintenance program has been a tremendous success.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: We were attempting to help the farmers keep their herds, and we managed in that regard. Over 80 per cent of all applicants will be paid.


Mr. McKnight:: When?


Pierre De Bané: Between now and the end of March, within two weeks. Second, the criteria were set after extensive consultation with producer associations. I listened very attentively to all sides before deciding on the criteria. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member not to misrepresent the figures, as did an hon. member the other day when he wanted an emergency discussion under Standing Order 43 with regard to those who were asked to return their cheques. Not more than six people out of more than 20,000 who received cheques were asked to return them because there had been a mistake. Therefore, please do not overplay this matter.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The program is very successful for those farmers who have received payment. However, the 12,000 who have not received payment think otherwise. Some of them live right across the road from persons who have received payment.


Madam Speaker:: Order. We would rather have a question than an enumeration of all those who did not receive their money.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will the minister give us a specific undertaking that those 12,000 people will be considered and that the criteria, which to some extent are based on rainfall and crops, will be eliminated? Further, since the messy administration of this program is a result of the inability of the agency to handle

March 17, 1981
Oral Questions
it, will some preparation be made for next year in case the same kind of situation develops?


Pierre De Bané: With regard to the last part of the question, Madam Speaker, I have already instructed my officials to make preparations in case there is another crisis. With regard to the first part of the hon. member's question, that we discard the precipitation criteria, I fail to see the logic in that request when we have been dealing with a drought situation. In order to put everything into perspective, let us not forget one thing. The federal government has opted to alleviate this crisis with four different programs totalling $67 million. The government of Saskatchewan has adopted programs totalling less than $600,000.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last September 12, the minister agreed with his Quebec counterpart to share financially in the upgrading of commuter trains in the Montreal area. Can the Minister of Transport tell us, first of all, whether the memorandum of agreement has indeed been signed, and second, whether the federal share of $80 million is conditional upon the three lines being updated?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the federal contribution of $80 million is indeed conditional upon the three lines involved being upgraded. As for the agreement itself, it is now in the hands of the provincial transport minister, and there does not seem to be any reason for delaying the signing of this agreement by both of us.


MARINE TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a subject in which the Minister of Transport and others in this chamber are very interested. It has to do with the government's imposition of a bunker and diesel fuel surcharge with regard to Canadian shipping. Is the minister in a position to respond to the very urgent request of the Dominion Marine Association, which represents about 95 per cent of the Canadian merchant marine, to exempt Canadian registered ships from the world price principle, whatever percentage that might happen to be? Is the minister in a position to respond to that request and give some indication to the Canadian shipping community that those charges will not apply to Canadian owned and crewed Canadian registered ships operating in Canadian waters in the export trade?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that question is very much before the Department of Finance at the present time. 1 am having consultations with various ministers, including the Minister of Transport.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the matter is now before the Minister of Finance. Can we ascertain from the minister whether the imposition of this surcharge on Canadian registered ships engaged in domestic and foreign trade was a mistake, and the government is now attempting to devise a two-price formula which will exempt Canadian ships from this onerous charge and put them on an equal footing with other modes of transportation, such as highway trucking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the decision to impose this charge or to take this particular action was not a mistake. It was not done without careful consideration. However, representations are being made by interested parties and it may be that new facts or considerations will bear upon the subject. That is what we are trying to do at the present time.


NOTIFICATION OF VACANCY
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Roch La Salle, member for the electoral district of Joliette, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, since this is a great day for the Irish and those who wish to be Irish, may I wish the O'Ouellets, O'Trudeaus, O'Hnatyshyns, O'Sauves, the O'Mazankowskis from the O'Paproskis a very happy St. Patrick's Day. Erin go Bragh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ST. PATRICK'S DAY
[Stage Direction]
March 17, 1981

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, this is a follow-up to the matter I raised with you last week in regard to a Standing Order 43 which two members opposite raised in the House of Commons on March 10. The reason I rise on a question of privilege in this regard is that I believe the implication of this Standing Order 43 reflects upon my role and effectiveness as a Member of Parliament representing my home province of Alberta. The motion attempts to muzzle a free, democratic and responsible press from reporting the reality of what is happening in Alberta.
The stupidity of this motion is what I object to because the newspapers of my region are not stirring up dissension; rather, they are simply reporting the dissension that exists in western Canada. If the members opposite are ignorant of that dissension, I suggest they resign from office because they are not fulfilling their mandate of representing all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, this dissension is a result of the constitutional and energy proposals brought forward-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: I do have to interrupt the hon. member. From the notice he gave me I was not quite sure that he had a question of privilege. I warned the hon. member of the reasons why I thought so. He is not now developing any new arguments and is really entering into debate on a motion on which the House has passed judgment. If he had wanted to debate the Standing Order 43 motion, it was possible for him to do so then.
Now, I know he was not in the House on that day but there is a saying:
[ Translation]
-to the effect that the absent are always in the wrong. [English]
Quite possibly the hon. member is not to blame because he was probably attending other important duties elsewhere in connection with his role as a Member of Parliament, but when these motions are put to the House, the rules do provide for debate at certain times. Therefore, I must apply those rules. The hon. member had an opportunity to debate the motion at that time, but unfortunately he was not here. He should use some other way of bringing this matter, which obviously concerns him very much, before the House, but not by means of a question of privilege.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) of the House of Commons and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) and on my behalf, I have the pleasure of tabling two copies in both official languages of the report of Justice Rene-J. Marin, Commissioner of the Commission of Inquiry on the Security and Investigation Services Branch of the Post Office Department.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,873 and 2,010 to 2,019 inclusively.


Mr. Herbert: Has the office of the Secretary of State or the department determined that other departments shall have access to postal services at rates less than those applicable to the public sector and, if so, which departments are affected and what was the estimated cost of this subsidy in each of the past three years?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: the only program of reduced postal rates involving the Secretary of State is that covered by the memorandum of understanding with the Postmaster General, which has now been transferred to the Minister of Communications. The major categories of mail included are second-class publications and third-class publishers' books. Federal government departments receive no special privileges

March 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions
which are not offered to the public sector under the same terms and conditions in any of these reduced rate categories.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Newfoundland, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: There are no federal penitentiaries located in the province of Newfoundland. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of that province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Prince Edward Island, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There are no federal penitentiaries located in the province of Prince Edward Island. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of that province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of New Brunswick, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of New Brunswick is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Nova Scotia, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Nova Scotia is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information
about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Quebec, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Quebec is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the minister of justice of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Ontario, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Ontario is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Manitoba, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Manitoba is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Saskatchewan, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Saskatchewan is five.
March 17, 1981

Case No. 1
(a)	Twenty-four years old.
(b)	Five months, 30 days.
(c)	Second degree murder.
Case No. 2
(a)	Twenty-two years old.
(b)	One year, 13 days.
(c)	Arson.
Case No. 3
(a)	Thirty-two years old.
(b)	Two months, 29 days.
(c)	Second degree murder.
Case No. 4
(a)	Thirty years old.
(b)	Eleven months, one day.
(c)	Non-capital murder.
Case No. 5
(a)	Thirty-seven years old.
(b)	One year, one day.
(c)	Arson.
Persons confined under Lieutenant Governor warrants have been found unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity or have not been found guilty of the indictable offences they were charged with because they were insane at the time the offences were committed.
2. Three are mentally disabled, one has improved considerably and one has been admitted for assessment only under federal-provincial agreement. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of that province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of Alberta, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The number of persons who, under section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of Alberta is nil. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in
Order Paper Questions
provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of the province.


Mr. Young: 1.	In the province of British Columbia, how many persons are presently incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants and, in each case (a) what is the age of the person (b) for how long has he/she been incarcerated (c) for what offence?
2.	How many of the total being held are mentally disabled?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The number of persons who, under Section 545 of the Criminal Code, have been directed to or transferred by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor warrant to a federal penitentiary in the province of British Columbia is two.
Case No. 1
(a)	Thirty-five years old.
(b)	Two years, 11 months, two days.
(c)	Six counts of non-capital murder.
Case No. 2
(a)	Twenty-seven years old.
(b)	Five years, ten months, five days.
(c)	Capital murder.
Persons confined under Lieutenant Governor warrants have been found unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity or have not been found guilty of the indictable offences they were charged with because they were insane at the time the offences were committed.
2. Both individuals are mentally disabled. If the hon. member wishes to obtain information about persons incarcerated under Lieutenant Governor warrants in provincial prisons, he should communicate with the attorney general of that province.

[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,669 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,669 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
[ Text]


Mr. Murta: 1.	During each fiscal year between 1969-70 and 1979-80, were programs undertaken by the government to encourage the development of a more humane method of trapping fur-bearing animals and, if so (a) what were they (b) what were the total expenditures, by fiscal year?
2.	What programs and expenditures are projected for the coming fiscal years?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


J. Michael Forrestall: That this House condemns the failure of the government to deal adequately with national transportation problems, and specifically condemns the Minister of Transport for:
1.	abandoning the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional economic development;
2.	allowing Canadian National Railways to totally disregard legitimate maritime business needs and close CN Express offices without adequate financial justification;
3.	permitting CN Marine to impose excessive increases in ferry rates for 1981 after showing an $8 million profit last year;
4.	failing to ensure an adequate supply of reefer cars or to recognize the growing requirement for farm door "piggy back" trailer service, particularly in Prince Edward Island;
5.	failing to initiate changes designed to speed up the "appeal" system under the CTC regulatory process, causing substantial dollar losses to Atlantic transportation users;
6.	allowing a serious deterioration in freight rate structures, leading to a loss of the traditional parity between river and coastal ports;
7.	failing to bring before the House acceptable legislation dealing with a new national transportation act, ports policy, the Maritime Code, or coastal shipping;
8.	permitting unconscionable delays in providing a new air terminal in Charlottetown; and
9.	allowing undue delays in the construction of the St. John's syncro-lift facility.
He said: Madam Speaker, part of the purpose of my motion today is to try to bring to the attention of government supporters opposite some of the very pressing and historic problems that Atlantic Canadians face in the area of general transportation. Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) indicated to the House that as time goes by transportation is becoming less and less important to people in Atlantic Canada. Well, obviously the minister was speaking on the advice of others, not from any personal knowledge, or he would never have made that comment, particularly in the context in which he made it.
For over 115 years the central government has caused problems in this area, to the serious economic, social and cultural disadvantage of the people of Atlantic Canada. The suggestion that everything is fine there with respect to transportation, that it is going along great and that we do not consider it a problem, is utter nonsense and should be rejected out of hand.
My motion, Mr. Speaker, ranges from freight rate structures to the fiasco involving the syncro-lift facility in the port of St. John's. We have seen the abandonment by CN of the rail line along Nova Scotia's eastern shore at a point in time when that province had just started construction of an industrial park based on the presence of that rail line. We have witnessed inexplicable delays in the construction of a new air terminal at Charlottetown, in the works for five years. We learned today it is another two to three years down the road. It was promised five years ago! We are now looking at a seven-year fiasco.
There has been continued procrastination by this government with respect to the gradual redevelopment of the Canadian deep sea fleet. There has been a thoughtless approach in implementing fuel surcharges. 1 just raised this subject with hon. members on the treasury benches. Surcharges on shipping fuel lump foreign and Canadian ships into one discriminatory basket. There are a dozen and one other very clear examples which we will attempt this afternoon to bring forcibly to the minister's attention. There continue to be marine transportation and general transportation problems for us in Atlantic Canada.
The motion cites nine basic reasons. We talk firstly about abandoning the use of transportation as a deliberate tool of national and regional economic development. For years Treasury Board officials and former ministers of transport right up to the last minister of transport committed themselves to the deliberate use of transport as a tool of development, but government, if for no other reason than the three or four examples I cited just a moment ago, has in fact not used transport as a tool of development.
There are contradictions. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Facilities have been built; federal assistance has been sought; there has been some degree of approval; but then the Ministry of Transport allows Canadian National to tear up lines intended to service the industrial sector. We are not deliberately using transport as a tool, when it could be the most useful tool we have available to us.
We have allowed Canadian National Railways to disregard totally legitimate maritime business needs. CN Express offices have been closed without adequate financial justification. The
March 17, 1981

Standing Committee on Transport dealt with this issue some weeTcs ago. Just a number of days ago the report of the Standing Committee on Transport was concurred in by the House of Commons. That report called on the minister to use his offices to direct Canadian National to maintain express service at the 1979 level. We hope that during the course of the debate this afternoon the Minister of Transport or others on his side of the House who speak will be pleased to indicate to us just how the minister intends to react to that direct request of this House. Will he accede to the wishes of the House, or will he ignore them? We will be interested in hearing about that later on.
With respect to CN Marine ferry rates, we understand there is a proposition before the government which would reorder the terms of reference within which CN Marine and the regulatory agencies arrive at formulae for increasing rates. This will be dealt with in greater depth by one of my colleagues later on. However, we wonder what the minister will have to say about putting in place new terms of reference and setting new directions with respect to CN Marine ferry rates. That august agency made for itself $8 million or $10 million profit last year.
In our motion we have touched on the historic numeric inadequacies of reefer cars for potato producers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In the 15 or 16 years I have been in this House I have not once gone through a year in which western grain producers were not howling about boxcars and hopper cars. Over that same period Atlantic potato producers and other horticultural producers experienced the same desperate need for reefer cars and other means to get their produce to market. This is what we are concerned about. The problem is chronic, and it is real. The minister suggests that it is other than that, but that merely indicates to the people of Atlantic Canada that he has not bothered to take a close look at this himself.
Some years ago there was a movement on the part of the government to examine closely the Canadian Transport Commission, which regulates transportation. Out of that came some thoughts about breaking down the CTC and establishing in western Canada a regional office which would give western producers and western transportation people geographically and psychologically closer access to their regulatory agency, the CTC. When the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) became minister of transport, he picked that idea up and carried the ball. There now is in operation in western Canada a branch office, so to speak, of the CTC.
Aside from the generally beneficial effect of decentralization in these matters, the purpose of the CTC is to reflect realities and respond more adequately to the needs of Canada's regions. Westerners no longer have to deal with Ottawa either in terms of geography or the psychology which comes about with respect to distance every time they need new licences, renewals or rulings or every time they wish to state grievances regarding rulings. But lo and behold, not only do we in Atlantic Canada not yet have this facility; there is no indica-
Transportation
tion we will ever get it. That is again another prime example of ignoring the legitimate needs of eastern Canadians.
There should be established in eastern Canada an office of that regulatory agency which is accessible to eastern users of transport and those directly involved in transportation as an industry. The delay is inexcusable. Eastern Canada should be treated at least on an equal basis. There should also be the recognition that, like Ontarians and Quebecers, we too are Canadians.
We have taken a run at the minister for something which is historical and runs a little deeper than some of us in Atlantic Canada care to see continue happening. It is manifested by the apparent deterioration in the competitive position of eastern producers as a result of inadequate control and monitoring of freight rate structures. There is developing in eastern Canada a growing sense of mistrust of Canadian National Railways. CN is our lifeblood. God knows that except for the port of Saint John all of us are captive to the CN. We know what the CN has done in recent years in relation to general freight rate structures. We know its attitude with respect to the closing of its express offices. We know about its involvement in CAST, which is the most damnable involvement any minister of transport could permit of a Crown agency. Crown agencies must act in contemplation of good business practices and in contemplation of profit.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That was done in 1975.


J. Michael Forrestall: However, that should not lead to a growing appearance of conflict of interest which Canadian National is beginning to enjoy now in the eyes of Atlantic Canadians. There may not be conflict of interest today, nor was there four or five years ago when the minister's predecessor once removed allowed Canadian National to involve itself in CAST steamships, but that potential conflict of interest is rearing its ugly head in the port of Halifax today. I suggest to the minister that he is not so naive as not to know that there is some grain of truth in what I am saying and some reason for me and others on the east coast to worry. At some point in the not too distant future, that conflict of interest could result in a disastrous rate war between shipping lines servicing the ports of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Saint John, New Brunswick, and shipping lines servicing ports from Quebec City to Montreal. We condemn the minister for having allowed this to happen.
The former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, did much in his short time in office to correct and stem this disastrous trend. In the past, the minister has not seen fit to pick up and carry on where his predecessor left off. They were good programs, the programs I mentioned. I say to the minister: give us an eastern office of the Canadian Transport Commission. It was a good idea, and let him not reject it just because it came from this side of the chamber. If it is a good idea, let him use it. We welcome the positive and beneficial initiatives of the Minister of Transport and his colleagues on the treasury benches.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
I will give an example of that, Mr. Speaker. A prime example is the Ocean Industries agreement which has been ready for signature for over a year. Where is it now? It is not in the office of the responsible minister, not in the Treasury Board nor in cabinet. It sits on the desk of the political minister for Nova Scotia, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). And why will he not approve it? He will not approve it because the minister of industry and development in the province of Nova Scotia said to a reporter one day: "The details of the agreement are included, and we have agreement". That was months and months ago. The Deputy Prime Minister said to himself: "I will teach that whipper-snapper a lesson; you people in Nova Scotia will not get your Ocean Industries agreement until I am ready to approve it". I wish that distinguished Cape Bretoner were in the House because I would like to say to his face that we do not appreciate that. That is just an example, and I will not dwell on it any further.
How have all these things happened? We could go on and on about this if the minister would listen this afternoon. Probably it has happened because the present National Transportation Act in this country is 14 years old. It reflects the thinking of 15, 1.6, 18 years ago. In the early 1960s we were drafting the act which ostensibly governs the development of transportation policies in this country. The transportation policy dreamt up and prepared in the early 1960s does not adequately meet the demands of that sector in the 1980s; it is long past due.
When will the minister and the government address themselves to the problems of putting a clear statement of philosophy and principle in front of the Canadian people from which can flow the essential transportation policy and legislation which is required to sort out the mess in transportation, not only in eastern Canada but in Canada generally? I think probably that is at the root: we have no philosophy to which we can attune a port policy or a coastal shipping policy. We have no standard against which we can measure the desirability of the gradual development of a Canadian deep sea fleet, although failure to do so is costing us about $4 billion annually. We have no statement from this government, nor have we had a statement from any government for some 12 or 14 years now, on what the essence of transport and transport legislation is and should be in this country. In front of us we have 15 or 20 carts, but we do not have a horse to push them-the old one is 12 or 14 years now and he was put out to pasture two or three ministers of transport ago.
Nobody, apart from the former minister of transport, has given any public indication of the desirability and necessity of bringing forward a new National Transportation Act. We need a new act. We need a new ports policy, and we need to complete the five books of the Maritime Code. We have to resolve the coastal shipping program. We have to resolve the fuel surcharge problem or we will drive users of water-borne vehicles, the most efficient mode of transport, to using less efficient modes of transport which do not have to pay the surcharge, which is discriminatory in itself.
I referred to the air terminal at Charlottetown. It was somewhat alarming for us to learn earlier today that a st'udy, which we thought had been completed in the minister's department some months ago, is just now at the point where yet a further study can be undertaken with respect to the provision of new air terminal facilities at Charlottetown. We learned quite by accident earlier today-although probably it had been known-that in place of a new air terminal they are going to add 15 feet on to the luggage handling section of the airport at Charlottetown right on the eve of the 1981 tourist season in that province. It is mind boggling!
The purpose of today's debate is to draw to the attention of the minister and his parliamentary secretary-both of whom we are very pleased to see in the chamber-as well as the other members of the Standing Committee on Transport, selected topics, by no means all-inclusive, and examples of the concerns of transportation users in Atlantic Canada.
I have not even touched upon rail passenger service, the difficulties at the Halifax International Airport or the continuing difficulties with air connections in and out of Fredericton, New Brunswick. I have not talked about the regional air carrier policy or the need for much closer, effective working arrangements between Air Canada and the regional air carrier. The list is somewhat exhaustive.
Over the course of the next two or three hours, the House will hear from my colleagues from St. John's West, Malpeque, Carleton-Charlotte, Hillsborough and Annapolis Valley-Hants about these and other problems which confront the people of Atlantic Canada.
I close by reiterating my concern that some ministerial adviser got to the Minister of Transport and said to him: "Do not worry about transport in Atlantic Canada; our best advice to you is that they no longer consider it important". As long as this government is in office, I do not ever expect to know one Atlantic Canadian who will not, at the drop of a hat, give me 101 reasons why the government should resign or 1,001 reasons why the Minister of Transport should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. Transportation in Canada needs much more attention than it has been receiving. At the outset I want to say that we have carefully read the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) on behalf of the official opposition and we agree with the motion proposed by the hon. member.
His motion starts off by condemning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for abandoning the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional economic development. We agree that a national transportation policy should be used as an active instrument to encourage regional growth, but successive federal governments have not done this. Instead, they have treated transportation in isolation.
March 17, 1981

Prior to confederation, Atlantic Canada had a prosperous trade up and down the east coast of the United States. When it was decided to develop Canada as a country independent of the United States, confederation encouraged east-west trade by building the Intercolonial railway. Thus, the deal was a national policy of relatively low-cost east-west transportation to the maritimes and protection of central Canadian industry. Now the problem is that Atlantic Canada is not provided with low-cost, efficient east-west transportation. This situation must be changed if our country is to grow stronger, particularly in Atlantic Canada. Poor east-west transportation will continue to balkanize our regions and encourage them to do more north-south trade because transportation costs may be cheaper or more convenient.
The second paragraph of the motion condemns the minister for allowing CN Express to pull out of Atlantic Canada as well as other parts of the country. I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Transport from both the other parties for supporting my motion to which the House unanimously agreed last week. How can the minister and his government accept a motion which asks the government to consider doing a certain thing regarding CN Express and not take some action on it? He cannot use the excuse that CN must make these corporate decisions independently. I could recite a motion which was accepted in the House in 1970 or 1971 on CN pensions which CN chose to ignore. The minister of that day got in touch with CN and let them know that they had darned well better do it. He can do the same thing now.
Point three condemns the minister for allowing CN Marine to impose ferry rate increases. We believe that the national government, in concert with the provinces, should treat our ferries and coastal services as an integral part of our rail and highway systems. There should be nominal tolls and, in some instances, there should be no tolls. Certainly there should be no increases. They should be funded as our highway systems are funded. At least 21 new vessels should be built for ferry and coastal services for Atlantic Canada alone.
The fourth point condemns the record on potato movement. Since 1968 the transport committee was in Atlantic Canada three times, and the same problem was presented on every occasion; there is nothing new about it. It is not only the supply of reefer cars for potato movement; the railroads have never provided sufficient accommodation to handle the traffic in almost every commodity for shipment out of Atlantic Canada, western Canada and some parts of central Canada, as is required under Section 262 of the Railway Act. There is a shortage of stock cars, cars to move fruit and vegetables, cars to move potatoes, cars to move grain and so on.
The fifth point condemns the slow appeal system of the CTC. We agree that the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act should be amended to protect shippers and to speed up the process.
Point six condemns the freight rate structures. A railway consultant recently said that CN rates on containers are double the cost of providing service. In fact, the consultant said that CN could cut its rate on containers from Halifax to
Transportation
Montreal by half and still make a profit. Those high costs hurt maritime ports.
The entire matter of rates has been a chronic problem in Atlantic Canada as well as western Canada. There are still anomalies which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and previous ministers of transport agreed should be corrected. For example, in 1977 it cost 2.8 cents per tonne mile to haul fish 800 miles from central Canada to Atlantic Canada, but it cost nearly double that amount, or 5.29 cents per tonne mile to haul fish from Atlantic Canada to central Canada. There are problems with the steel industry in Cape Breton. In 1979 it cost 71 cents per hundred pounds to ship steel billets 375 miles from Hamilton to montreal, but it cost $2.84 to ship a hundred pounds of steel billets 354 miles from Sydney to Moncton. Nothing has been done about those rate anomalies, to put it mildly.
The seventh point condemns the minister for his failure to bring in amendments to the National Transportation Act, the Maritime Code or bring in a policy on coastal shipping. The National Transportation Act should be amended to give regional development priority over profits. The shipping legislation needs to be updated. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will deal with that later. The Minister of Transport has implemented a new ports policy without consulting Parliament. He approved Treasury Board action which forgave interest payments on $300 million of National Harbours Board debt but opposed the marching orders from Ottawa that all NHB ports are on their own and must be profitable.
I was glad to see the change of heart by the official opposition. On September 26, 1979, the then minister of transport had his National Harbours Board chairman telex every port commissioner in Canada asking for a business plan which would make each port self-financing within three years. The telex read:
Would you please review all of your port's tariffs and submit a plan for proposed increases up to 1982, which will result in revenues equal to or greater than-
He was referring to the cost of operating the ports. I am glad that there has been a change of heart since in Halifax there has been, for example, a 400 per cent increase in rental fees per square foot used for containers. No wonder containers go to Montreal instead of Halifax. It is the principle of user-pay; the port must break even or make a profit.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East mentioned the delay in building a new air terminal at Charlottetown. I want to tell him that we fully agree and sympathize with him over that delay. But he should take a look at what has been happening in Regina-or, rather, what has not been happening in Regina. Five years ago the deputy minister of air administration told me in the transport committee that the construction of an air terminal in Regina would be completed within three years. That was five years ago and it has not even been started yet. In fact, plans are being drawn again and the

March 17, 1981
Transportation
time-frame for completion is now 1985 or 1986. We outgrew our airport terminal about eight or ten years ago. So, the situation is not just peculiar to Charlottetown. I submit that places like Regina, St. John's and Moncton are in a similar category.
There has been no action on the synchrolift facility at St. John's. The construction of that facility would add 150 jobs to that shipyard and would increase its capacity.


John Carnell Crosbie: Two hundred jobs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member says 200 jobs, which is all the better. The capacity of every shipyard in Canada should be increased. Government should adopt a policy to create a Canadian merchant marine and encourage Canadian shipbuilding.
The motion presented by the official opposition today, Mr. Speaker, is one that we can support. We want to add three more points to it which we believe will be acceptable to my colleagues to my right and, hopefully, to the government.
I suppose that the motion is somewhat hard on the present minister. At the moment I am not about to ask him for his resignation, although if he will clean up his act and implement a large number of measures which members from parties on this side of the House have been suggesting and urging these many years, he would not have to suffer the slings and arrows of opposition motions and questions.
The three items which we think should be added to the motion are as follows. We think the government should be persuaded or should agree to give up profit and user-pay priority over service to shippers and the travelling public in Atlantic Canada-for that matter, in all of Canada. Because of our climate and geography it is inevitable that all Canadians must equitably share the costs of transportation. That is particularly important for development in the Atlantic region, as well as in the west and the north. Confederation was not built on user-pay, and our climate and geography has not changed since then.
User-pay goes back to the MacPherson royal commission of 1961, which treated the concept of transport for development purposes as outdated. Some 20 years later every day in all regions of Canada we see how outdated the recommendation of the MacPherson report is. If we were to follow that policy through to its logical conclusion, it might also be possible to shrink Canada from 4,000 miles to 400 miles. It might also be possible to level the Rocky Mountains. That policy of user-pay and profitability taking priority over the provision of adequate transportation services to all regions of this country is doomed to fail. If it does succeed it is doomed to do irrevocable harm to our unity, more so than even the present debate on the Constitution.
I do not believe that it was appropriate for the previous Conservative government to send a directive calling for increases in port fees because that was simply carrying on at all costs the policy of user-pay profit which had been introduced by the previous Liberal government under a former minister of transport whom the voters finally caught up with.
The government should develop an industrial strategy providing Atlantic Canadian employment in building a modern and updated transportation system. There should be public investment to upgrade railways right across Canada. Rail steel is produced at Sydney, Nova Scotia and freight cars are produced at Trenton, Nova Scotia. I am happy to say that Saskatchewan, other provinces and the federal government bought many of the hopper cars from Trenton. But what about reefer cars for the movement of potatoes? The Newfoundland railway should be converted to standard gauge and curves should be straightened. This alone would consume enough steel to keep production at Sydney going for at least six months.
We need 21 vessels for CN Marine coastal and ferry services. We need a policy to create a merchant marine, support the Canadian shipbuilding industry and use short take-off and landing aircraft to serve coastal and northern communities. We do not need an elitist STOL service to handle business executives, MPs and deputy ministers between Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa; they can take the train.
We need public investment in urban transit in all cities in Atlantic Canada. We need multimodal stations to reduce terminal costs so that buses, railways and airlines can combine their operations, thus reducing costs to the travelling public. We need a more modernized VIA Rail service. This requires a higher priority from the national government.
Before I run out of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment to the main motion and continue my remarks for as long as you and the members of the House are prepared to allow me. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semi-colon, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"10. putting profits and user-pay ahead of service to Atlantic Canada;
11.	failing to develop an industrial strategy to create employment in Atlantic
Canada by building a modern transportation system; and
12.	failing to modernize rail passenger service in Atlantic Canada."
I believe that my amendment is relevant to, and a suitable addition to, the main motion proposed by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I hope it is acceptable not only to him and his colleagues, but also to the minister.
In the building of an industrial strategy or in the building of a strong economy, to use the words of some government cabinet ministers, transportation is an essential foundation to the success of an industrial strategy, a growing economy and full employment. Unless we can move goods and people fairly as well as efficiently, then any economic plans, private, public or governmental, cannot succeed. We should also have a policy in place which quits discriminating against people and their goods in this country because of where they happen to live or are located.
March 17, 1981

The Minister of Transport could set an example and lead the way in co-operating with the provinces and the territories for a system of equalized and/or subsidized transportation costs, freight rates and fares. When it costs $2 or $3 for a quart of milk in the Arctic but only 75 cents or $1 down south, surely that is discrimination. It is strange how provinces can equalize the price of liquor-I have been known to take the odd drink. Provinces can equalize the price of liquor from one end of the province to the other but they cannot do it with milk, fresh fruit and vegetables, propane and heating oils, flour and sugar, all of which are essential goods. This could be done for people on the Atlantic coast, the Pacific coast and those in northern Canada. As long as this government, or any government, adheres to the principles and theories of the 1890s when it considers transportation matters, we will fail to do the kind of job we could be doing.
Atlantic Canada needs a rebuilding of its transportation system. It needs electrified rail lines, additional rolling stock, and improved ferry services provided at cost or less than cost. I would prefer the latter, because at cost fares would have to increase. That cost should be borne by the nation as a whole, whether the cost is incurred on the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast.
These kinds of transportation services will provide the type of infrastructure and foundation which will allow Atlantic industry to sell and ship to central Canada, to the United States, or overseas, since there are not enough people in Atlantic Canada to provide a market for all its potential production capacities. These people have to move their goods out of Atlantic Canada. We have seen too many instances where home industries in Atlantic Canada went bankrupt because they could not compete due to transportation costs and inadequacies, or compete with goods coming into central Canada from other parts of the world or the United States.
I hope the House will support our amendment and the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I will read the motion. Moved by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semi-colon, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"10. putting profits and user-pay ahead of service to Atlantic Canada;
11.	failing to develop an industrial strategy to create employment in Atlantic
Canada by building a modern transportation system;
12.	failing to modernize rail passenger service in Atlantic Canada."
The Chair finds the motion to be in order, relevant and debatable.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Today, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative opposition is moving a motion condemning the policy of the government and particularly the conduct of the Minister of Transport on nine issues
Transportation
which, of course, have to do with transportation, particularly as it affects the Atlantic provinces. And just now the spokesman for the New Democratic Party has raised three more issues. I am pleased with the somewhat academic tone of the debate so far because I too am interested in giving hon. members as much information as possible so that the public at large will be in a better position to see what is going on.
Since we now have twelve topics, I will not be able to cover them all. For my part, I will speak to paragraph 1 concerning the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional development which, it is said here has been abandoned. Then I will go on to paragraph 6 of the motion which states that there has been a serious deterioration in freight rate structures, and paragraph 7 concerning the legislation which deals with ports, the Maritime Code and coastal shipping and which, according to the hon. member who moved this motion, has not been introduced in the House. And, as in his case, my colleagues will deal with the other topics. My colleagues from Moncton (Mr. McCauley), Egmont (Mr. Henderson), Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) and Northumberland-Mirami-chi (Mr. Dionne) will deal with the other topics, namely the CN Express offices, CN Marine and its ferries, the Charlottetown airport, the St. John's syncro-lift facility, certain types of railroad cars, and potatoes of course. They will address themselves to all those subjects and this evening, probably around 9.30 p.m., the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), whom I am pleased to have as parliamentary secretary, will gather all questions left unanswered and clean up the whole slate. This way, Mr. Speaker, we hope to answer the numerous questions raised in this motion. Before going any further- [English]
-I would like to say that the department and the minister have not neglected consulting with the governments and people of the Atlantic provinces. This subject was mentioned by the mover of the motion. I want to assure the House that the mechanism of consultation between governments has been reactivated. It has been pretty slow in recent times. In the last years, particularly in Newfoundland, a federal-provincial committee of Atlantic region transportation officials has been meeting quite regularly. As a matter of fact, it is meeting today in Ottawa.
I may add that I have had discussions with all my provincial counterparts in their own capitals, and in Ottawa and Toronto in the last year. I am going to St. John's, Newfoundland, at the end of this month for purposes of negotiation. There will probably be announcements of major importance, particularly with respect to the Newfoundland railway.
On the first point, the national transportation policy, there is action. The motion says that the minister has been abandoning the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional economic development. I am quite surprised by this perception because my impression is that we have been adding to it. In my view, the federal government, through Transport Canada par-

March 17, 1981
Transportation
ticularly, is very much present in the transportation systems of the provinces; all $564 million worth of presence, if one counts in dollars, and a much higher per capita presence-$252- than anywhere else in Canada. That presence is recognized in all modes of transportation: railways, ferries, coastal services, search and rescue, urban transportation, airports, highways, etc.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) regrets that the National Transportation Act does not make specific reference to the objective of regional development. He knows better than I do that previous attempts at legislating this particular preoccupation have failed. There is no time to bring in a bill on that subject now. It would be damaging and sad if the government-this one and previous ones-did not give quite a lot of attention to the use of transportation as an instrument of regional development.
What about the impact of improvement ports on regional development? Consider what took place in Halifax, for example, concerning the building of the Fairview Cove at the second terminal. There is the proposal to build a potash facility at Saint John. There is also the matter of improved air facilities and services within as well as to and from the region.
At the time, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East approved the government's decision to allow EPA instead of CP Air to fly direct from Halifax to Toronto as a way of strengthening the economic base of EPA. He must be even more pleased now because Halifax is also being served by CP Air from Montreal and other points, with the exception of Toronto. Yesterday I heard that Air Canada had announced a non-stop Calgary-Halifax route for the coming months. I am sure his colleagues from Newfoundland rejoice in the new airport facilities on the Labrador coast. There are four of them and more to come. A new service facility is being built at Gander. I could go on and illustrate the impact of ferry subsidies and the improved services.
A moment ago the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) told us that the government should ignore profits when setting its transportation policies in Canada as a whole, and in the Atlantic provinces in particular. Most of us know that the rate of subsidization of ferries in the Atlantic area is considerable. In the last ten years, cost recovery has been reduced from 23 per cent to 20 per cent. If that is not the abandonment of profit for the purpose of regional development, I wonder what is. The same applies to the impact of the freight subsidy and the impact of federally-supported highway construction on cutting down distances and linking various centres in the Atlantic provinces.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see that the use of transportation and transportation policies to support economic, national and regional development has been weakened in any way. As a matter of fact, I think it has been strengthened and this will be demonstrated in the coming months.
Paragraph 6 of the motion states that freight rate structures have experienced serious deterioration and claims that there
has been a "loss of the traditional parity between river and coastal ports". I have notes enough here for the next three hours, Mr. Speaker, but that would be a Castro-type speech!
The first point I want to deal with under this heading concerns rail freight rates. There are numerous studies available dealing with freight rates in the Atlantic provinces. They conclude that freight rates in the Atlantic region are higher than the national average. This is a fact and it can be explained by what is referred to as the "commodity mix". That is, the mix of density of traffic, length of hauls, nature of the goods being transported and so on. It would take too much time to explain how that works and it is not peculiar to the Atlantic provinces; it is a national and international phenomenon. The same situation is experienced all over the world.
The difference between Atlantic rates and national rates reflects the relatively low rates in western Canada for such long haul commodities as coal and grain and the relatively short haul rates for Atlantic region commodities.
In the Atlantic provinces 80 per cent of rail traffic is in manufactured goods which originate or terminate there. The traffic is mostly short haul and, for obvious reasons, short haul is more expensive than long haul. However, Atlantic region freight rates compare favourably with those in Quebec and Ontario where most of its competition is. If hon. members would care for more information on this subject, I would be glad to send them notes that I have used today. I do not see how we can speak of "serious deterioration" when this phenomenon has been constant in the history of Canadian transportation.
As was indicated in question period today, the difference in freight rates has been identified by Premier Buchanan in recent days as one of the reasons for the Dart Containerline company moving from Halifax to Montreal. As I said in question period, there will be many opportunities in the coming months for that point to be proved. Until now, I have not seen much evidence of it. As a matter of fact, the president of Dart and the president of Halterm, the operator of Terminal I at Halifax which is partly owned by the government of Nova Scotia, has said very clearly that freight rates, or the position of CN in CAST, has not been a factor in that decision. He called it a straight "business decision", justified by the particular circumstances of a number of shipping companies. In the opinion of the experts with whom I have talked, the rail rates in Halifax are fair and equitable now. Of course, there could be any number of debates about what is fair and equitable. I have asked my experts-compared to what? They gave me a stock of comparisons.
Rail freight rates between Halifax and central Canada, particularly Montreal, have gone up 177 per cent in the last ten years. Compare that to the freight rate increase between Montreal and Toronto of 220 per cent; compare it to the consumer price index which is 216 per cent; compare it to the shipping rates across the Atlantic which are 425 per cent. That is about all one can produce in terms of estimating what is fair.
My friends on the other side should also be aware, as I am sure they are, that CN has equalized its rates with the port of
March 17, 1981

Saint John in New Brunswick, which gives the port of Halifax 200 miles of free transportation.
So much for freight rates, Mr. Speaker. The other point that 1 wish to develop is what my friend the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East called "a loss of the traditional parity between river and coastal ports". 1 have investigated that matter with the help of my specialists. As far as I can see there are three factors that could change that "parity between river and coastal ports".
The first one could be the higher charges levied by the National Harbours Board. I have asked the National Harbours Board to do some research and give me the figures. 1 find, as a result, that harbour dues are charged on the gross registered tonnage of the vessel are the same for all east coast ports-Halifax, Saint John and Quebec. So there is no discrimination in the matter of harbour dues. Berthage dues, money paid on the movement of ships at the dock, is the same throughout all eastern Canadian ports, so there is no discrimination there either. These are the facts and if hon. members want to challenge them, they should bring forward some evidence.
Then there is the wharfage charge on the cargo. This is on the basis of $1.78 per metric ton for containers, throughout east coast ports. However, Halterm, operating out of Terminal No. I in Halifax, enjoys a 50 per cent rebate on all wharfage charges. No other port in Canada enjoys this special arrangement. It represents a degree of subsidization on the part of the National Harbours Board which in 1980 was estimated at $1.8 million. If one wants to talk about discrimination being exercised against Halifax, one must bring up contrary facts to those I am now placing before hon. members.
The next point is with reference to rental and the National Harbours Board. This was alluded to in today's question period. The fact is that for the first ten years Halterm was given a development contract of 15 cents per square foot. I repeat, this was for a period of ten years. After the ten years, an assessment was made of the fair market value and it indicated that an increase was called for, I think last December, from $388,000 to $1.76 million, a pretty big jump. This was referred to in question period today.
The National Harbours Board has known all about this. This increase was fairly assessed by two experts and the lower of the two assessments was chosen. Other contracts signed with lessees at the port of Halifax in recent months have been at the same level. Elalterm is entitled to appeal, and it is doing that through the Federal Court.
On the general subject of the situation in the port of Halifax, there are a number of people with more optimistic views than those expressed regarding the Dart move. Again, the move will not take place before the end of the year, as was mentioned by the Dart people. Yesterday Gary Blaikie, the executive director of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Commission, made a speech in Halifax. He looked at the good side of things when analysing the development of containerization in the world today. He said that developments are taking place in the Caribbean, India, East Africa and so on. He saw Halifax,
Transportation
being in proximity to New York, as one of the prime locations for Canadian traffic. In a more positive and concrete way, he referred to a number of things that have taken place recently. For example, there is the contract that Ceres, which operates Terminal II at Fairview Cove, has with a Polish line and Soviet line representing 17,500 containers per year.
There is another piece of interesting news; I do not know whether my friends from the Atlantic have seen it. A news item of today states that 100,000 tons of flour will be shipped to the Soviet Union this year from Canada, most of which will be moved through Halifax, beginning next month. Are members opposite aware of that? The flour order is expected to provide steady work in Halifax for 300 longshoremen during the next four months.
I come back to my theme. If there is, as the mover of the motion says, a loss of traditional parity between river and coastal ports, my advice is that this is not caused by the National Harbours Board.
Another factor of disparity could be the Atlantic shipping rates which are determined by shipping conferences. As members know, these conferences are exempted from the rules of competition under the Shipping Conference Exemption Act of 1979. This is for the sake of stability and regularity of service.
I understand that shipping conferences can equalize the cost of shipping from point x in Europe to Halifax or Montreal. This is often a subject of debate in Canada. The exemption is valid from 1979 on for five years. Two years ago the CTC inquired into this subject. I tabled the CTC report on the operation of the shipping conferences yesterday. One can read in it that there has been no complaint about the operation of these conferences in Canada. Nevertheless, this is a subject of debate with arguments both for and against.
Another factor which might influence the traditional parity between river and coastal ports is the cost recovery by Transport Canada of navigational services. This was raised in the debate recently when some people said that the expenditure of the department on icebreaking in the St. Lawrence was "unfair competition" against the interests of the port of Halifax.
The subject is difficult because icebreaking is done for purposes other than navigation, such as the control of floods. There are other navigational aids to commercial transportation than icebreaking, so why choose this one and not others? There are also other ports in the Atlantic provinces which experience icing and come under the icebreaking program of the department. Be that as it may, it is estimated that the cost of icebreaking on the St. Lawrence and in the gulf is about $17 million. When that is divided by the commercial tonnage on the St. Lawrence and in the gulf, icebreaking aid can be assessed at the maximum, at $1.60 per ton, on the total cost of transportation. Experts say it is immaterial. So much for my analysis of freight rates, shipping rates and St. Lawrence rates.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Now let's deal with the
motion.

March 17, 1981
Transportation


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the next five mintues I will try to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East. He asked about our coastal trade policy. He knows better than I that earlier legislation on the subject was opposed by the Atlantic provinces and others. A team from Transport Canada has had extensive consultations on the subject. I know the hon. member speaks regularly with the officials of Transport Canada to keep in touch with developments in the world of transportation. He may realize that coastal trade is not the issue he thought it might be when he first became interested in it. I understand that 95 per cent of the coastal trade in Canada is done in Canadian bottoms. That eliminates the subject as a dramatic issue.
On the second subject, that of a deep sea fleet, the hon. member knows of the deep, deep division on this among Canadian public opinion. I have been exposed to this reality at a number of meetings, for example with the forest industry of British Columbia. Reconciliation efforts are being made. I have had meetings with people on both sides of the issue. My predecessor did not exactly move the world on this issue either. He knows that shippers are afraid that sooner or later the government might force them to use Canadian registered ships. He knows also that Canadian shippers are afraid of what happened on the union side.
On the Maritime Code question the situation is that because of the degree of urgency, amendments to the Canada Shipping Act were passed by cabinet last December and we hope they will come to the House for implementation next fall. These amendments will be to complete the revision of part XX of that act regarding liability and compensation for pollution.
With respect to the totality, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) would say of the Maritime Code, my officials expect that cabinet will receive it by August, 1981, which indicates that it might come to the House for legislative action in the fall of 1982. So progress is being made.
We may be closer to success with regard to port policy. During the summer, and more recently, I regularly met with groups and members of port authorities. The marine administrator of my department has done a tremendous amount of work in recent months on this subject, and there is a paper coming to cabinet in the coming days. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East is aware of the gist of the legislation that might develop from that paper. The general idea would be the creation of a national ports corporation, a maxi-corporation, as I call it, with much broader regional representation, and a number of mini-corporations in the different ports- Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver-with a much higher degree of management autonomy given to the local adminitra-tors. This is going to be very practical, down to earth and realistic, as the Minister of Transport is, and consequently I think it will have a good chance of being approved by Parliament.
Finally, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East said there was not enough philosophy, objectives, planning or sense
of orientation in matters of transport at this time in Canada. I would just like to put my two bits in. It is not a magnificent idea but one borrowed from others, like all ideas-no one has ever invented one-and I am trying to push it as hard as I can now because I think it makes sense.
Often enough today, I and others have referred to amounts of money the federal government is spending on transportation in the Atlantic provinces. Speaking very frankly, I am not at all sure that this money is always spent in the most worthwhile fashion. One of the reasons for this is the lack of planning and co-ordination between the interested parties. Another reason is the fear the provinces have of not getting all the help they can from the central government in each mode separately. I have been impressed by that. They tend to look at railways, ferries, air transportation and highways separately because in each case they feel they are in a better position in bargaining with the federal government.
To obviate that, and borrowing a chapter or two from the Sullivan report, we have offered to the Atlantic provinces in recent months a new approach which can be described in three words-multimodal, envelope and trade-off. Multimodal simply means that rail, highway, air transport and ferries will be looked upon together instead of in isolation. The envelope concept simply means that the money not spent in one province will not be returned to the Receiver General; it will be put in an envelope. The third word is trade-off. In that envelope it can be shifted from one mode to the other.
Now, I repeat, it is an idea that is not new at all but it makes sense, and personally I found it very well developed in the Sullivan report. So if the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was looking for a philosophy, for a direction, there is one that he could accept. This is the sort of deal we expect to strike with Newfoundland in the coming days.
As for the railways, maybe yes, maybe no; we would like to include them in that approach. It is quite possible that the provinces will want to treat them separately; but on other matters that I am not at liberty to reveal today, this approach will be taken. Premier Peckford and Mr. Brett, who is the Newfoundland minister of transport, have given approval in their own assembly recently. We hope to carry the same approach to other Atlantic provinces. That is about all I wanted to say.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Charlottetown airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Others will do that. I could only take one third of the 12 points where members of the opposition do not agree with what I have done. I hope I have given a lot of information, although some of the points raised were not really objective in the sense they did not correspond to reality. In the case of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, I think I have answered a great number of his questions which tended to indicate that no action was taking place; my answers, I think, tend to indicate the opposite.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out that the only reason transportation is
March 17, 1981

being discussed in this chamber today is that my party has some priorities that come ahead of the Constitution. I would like to point out that if the Constitution went to England tomorrow and every change the government proposed was adopted, we would not be one bit further ahead in solving the transportation problems of Canada than we are right now.
What this government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is slumbering while the Constitution constipates the government. There is no movement in transportation, in economic development, in the economy or in housing. Why not? Because of the Constitution. We have had it for 114 years but that is all this government can think about.


An hon. Member:: Vote on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Vote on it? We are not going to accept this load of garbage you are handing us; we will vote on it when we are ready and after it has been amply discussed. The government could postpone this debate and bring before this House the things they should be bringing forward on the economy, inflation, transportation and the like.
The minister just tolled the death knell for the hopes of Newfoundland for economic development, and that just fits in with the first clause of our non-confidence motion. We are censuring the government for abandoning the principle of the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional economic development. That is just what he said. He has come up with a new magic formula. It has to be one that is multimodal when he deals with the provinces. There is a certain envelope of spending and you will not get any more than that.
Then there are trade-offs. Well, how can there be trade-offs in the economic development of a region or province? How can you trade off a railway against decent road transportation? How can you trade off decent rail transportation against decent shipping transportation? Why should a region be expected to do that?
Central Canada has had all of these transportation modes for the last 114 years, but other areas of the country, like the Altantic provinces, have not. Why should we now be told to trade off? That is one of the three great points of this minister's policy. He is going to Newfoundland and saying: "Under the terms of union of 1949 we had to subsidize your ferry service across the gulf. We are going to take the amount of money that is costing us today and put it in your envelope, so there is $50 million or $60 million that you cannot have for other transportation needs in Newfoundland as a result of this alleged trade-off." That is not a trade-off; it was a constitutional right given to Newfoundland in 1949 and should not be in the envelope at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: So it is the death knell. This minister has been in office now for 13 months. He has been short-taken now for 13 months. What has he done? He has been looking, hesitating, obfuscating, bewailing, excusing and hand-wringing. He
Transportation
has been sighing. He has been crying. He is not doing, and he has been double-crossing.
What did he do? Where was his double-crossing? If the minister wants to know where he did the double-crossing, he did his double-crossing in Newfoundland when he changed the water transportation assistance directorate that his government promised it would move down to Newfoundland. He announced last year that the water transportation assistance directorate was no longer going to be transferred to Newfoundland, that he was reversing that policy because now there are more important policies. It was not going through. That was a commitment made in two elections, a solemn promise made to some of the employees transferred to Newfoundland, and the minister reversed that decision. He has been busy double-crossing, but he has not been acting.
Where are his transportation improvements? There have been very precious few that I can see. He did make one good decision, and that was on the route for EPA from Halifax to Toronto. I have to give the minister credit for that. He did the right thing there.
However, in area after area this government has no transportation policy. Its only policy is to squeeze the provinces, squeeze the regions, squeeze them till their pips squeak, give them the old talk about multimodal, give them the old talk about the famous envelope, give them the old talk about trade-offs till there is nothing left and no way for them to build up their economic development. 1 suggest that what we need here are six ministers to replace the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). We could have a minister of state for water transport, a minister of state for air transport, a minister of state for ground transport, a minister of state for Atlantic transport, a minister of state for western transport and a minister of state for excuses. All six of those together might be able to do a job which this minister certainly is not doing today. We need a minister whose whole time is devoted to excuses.
In my own province of Newfoundland the Trans-Canada Highway agreement terminates on March 31, 1981. This is March 17, St. Patrick's Day, and in 14 days' time this agreement expires. The minister has not concluded a new agreement with the government of Newfoundland. He has not told them what money is available. They are looking for $75 million in another three-year agreement. Just two weeks before this agreement expires there is no decision reached. We have the most miserable, spavined Trans-Canada highway in the whole country. It is a narrow, double-laned highway badly needing upgrading and repairing. It is the main route through Newfoundland and there are no trade-offs. That highway has to be strengthened and improved, or transportation comes to a halt in Newfoundland, but the minister has not yet entered into an agreement. It should be a 90 per cent federal and 10 per cent provincial agreement, not 50-50. That is one priority the minister should have, and he has apparently been doing nothing about it.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
There has been only one DREE agreement signed since the present government took office and we had the forestry agreement in January. They are still waiting to sign a coastal Labrador agreement. Although the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) represents Labrador, he is doing nothing to expedite that agreement. He should be ashamed of himself. That is the only proposed DREE agreement which has any funding in it for roads. The Straits road in coastal Labrador badly needs repair, but the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will no longer spend any funds on roads in Newfoundland. The Witless Bay line in my own district is very important for economic development in the region and for transportation of products from fish plants. The road from Trepassey to Peter's River in my own district of St. John's West badly needs reconstruction and paving to enable fishery products to be taken out and transported in, workers to get to their jobs and the like. Nothing has been done. The government will not have anything to do with roads under DREE agreements.
Then there is the Newfoundland government's study on the Newfoundland railway; the minister has announced no decisions on that. The minister is going to Newfoundland at the end of the month to announce a new containerization plan for the Newfoundland railway. They are going to attempt to go to containerization to help save that railway or to see if it can become economic. But I am concerned, as are the people of Newfoundland, about the 300 jobs that are now redundant and the additional jobs that may become redundant under that agreement. So I hope when the minister goes to Newfoundland he will deal adequately with that problem and see that these people get generous treatment, retraining, other jobs, early generous pensions or whatever is necessary.
With regard to the Deer Lake and Stephenville airports, I hope the minister-the member for that district has said this, and 1 hope he is correct-is going to keep both those airports operating as well as the airport in St. Anthony. I hope the minister is also going to start spending some money on the airport at St. John's. We have a major airport at St. John's which this government has always been prejudiced against. That airport handled 580,000 passengers in 1980, but a 100 per cent increase in air traffic volume in St. John's is expected in the next ten years due to the oil and gas development off the coast of Newfoundland. A 100 per cent increase in the next ten years, yet this government does nothing. It is not even improving the instrument landing system, as it is at other Canadian airports. I quote a release dated March 9:
Present planning calls for replacement of ILS at the following airports: Windsor, Whitehorse, Frobisher, Terrace, Moncton, Dorval, Sault Ste. Marie, Churchill, Thompson, Sudbury, Toronto, Halifax, Yellowknife, Stephenville, Hamilton, Fort St. John, Abbotsford, Edmonton, Sandspit and Lethbridge.
Sandspit comes ahead of St. John's airport which handled 580,000 passengers last year, with a 100 per cent increase in the next five to ten years anticipated. Yet this government will not even instal, a first-class ILS at St. John's airport. These are the kinds of things the minister should be giving his attention to. Never mind the multi-modal excuses. Never mind the envelope. Never mind the trade-offs. There can be no
trade-offs for proper transportation services in the more remote areas of Canada.
What about the patronage aspect? Patronage is overloading the whole transportation system. This minister is up to his ankles, up to his knees, he is approaching his chest in patronage. Here is one examples. The minister was written to on February 19 by the Newfoundland Shipowners, Agents and Brokers Association of St. John's-they represent Newfoundland shipowners-about a complaint concerning Canadian National and their tender operations in connection with services to Labrador. Their complaint to the minister went in almost a month ago. There has been no reply yet. Their complaint was that on January 7, 1980, CN Marine advertised a tender call for an ISU container-carrying vessel. The specifications for that vessel referred particularly in specification 5, to the vessel having derricks or cranes capable of handling safe-working loads of 22.5 tons specification, implying that the vessel had to be used in small ports. I have the specifications here. "Vessels should preferably be equipped with bow thrusters for requirement of operating in smaller coastal ports". Derricks or cranes were required.
The people who belong to the Newfoundland Shipowners, Agents and Brokers Association tendered for this vessel on the basis of these specifications. They located a suitable vessel that would meet those specifications. Tenders closed, and after tenders closed, lo and behold, the final announcement is made by CN on February 10 that they have awarded a contract for this vessel to Coastal Shipping Limited, but not for the kind of boat that they specified in their tender call. It is for a new roll-on, roll-off container shipping service between St. John's and Goose Bay, Labrador, only. The vessel does not have to go into small coastal ports. The vessel does not have to have derricks or cranes capable of handling 22!6-ton loads.
CN called a tender for one kind of vessel, publicized it and only allowed 23 days to put a bid in. The people who were not on the inside, knowing nothing about the fact that they wanted some other kind of vessel, located the kind of vessel that was specified, and then they were told that their vessel was not suitable, that the lowest tender was submitted by Coastal Shipping Limited, who tendered for a roll-on, roll-off vessel. Who is Coastal Shipping Limited? Coastal Shipping Limited is Mr. Mel Woodward, the biggest Liberal in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, a man heart to heart, brain to brain and toe to toe, with the Minister of National Revenue. This cries out for an investigation. Why was this method used? On page 2 of their letter to the minister, they asked why the time permitted for tendering was limited to 23 days-
-in light of the fact that the service was not scheduled to commence for some four months;
Why did the specifications require a vessel equipped with derricks or cranes when presumably roll-on, roll-off was acceptable and indeed now appears to be preferable for the service intended;
Why was there a reference in Specification 8 to "smaller coastal ports" when the service is actually St. John's to Goose Bay?
They were going to make this same Mr. Melvin Woodward a director of Petro-Canada until they found out that he represented Imperial Oil Limited up in Goose Bay and all
March 17, 1981

along the coast of Labrador. What are they going to do with him now? They are going to make him a director of the Bank of Canada, I hear. He is going to replace Spencer Lake. So, Mr. Minister, let us have a quick investigation. It was only a month ago that it was brought to the minister's attention. This situation cries out for investigation into the reasons that CN adopted this peculiar procedure. The whole transportation area is rife with this kind of, let us call it suspicious circumstance that requires explanation, particularly when you find that the Coastal Shipping company have the preferred deal. They must have had inside information as they happen to be also connected with one of the most prominent Liberals in Newfoundland, a man who was a member of the House of Assembly for that district at one time.
So do not talk to us about multimodal, do not talk to us about envelopes and do not talk to us about trade-offs. We have seen the trade-offs; Mr. Woodward just got a trade-off. What he got for the trade-off I do not know, but we got a trade-off. As long as the minister is in that portfolio, he will learn.
With regard to the syncro-lift facility, one of the most dastardly deeds ever done by the Government of Canada was to stop construction of the synchrolift for the CN dockyard in St. John's West, in my district, last fall. At page 2340 of the estimates of the Department of Public Works for 1981-82 we find: "St. John's syncro-lift dry-docking facility, $11,500,000". All that work has been stopped. The Minister of National Revenue was asked why, and I am told that on the air the other day he said: "We could not go ahead in our first year in office and spend money in a district that was held by the opposition". Imagine, Mr. Speaker, he candidly admitted that this was the basis on which the decision was made!
Economic development and the creation of 200 jobs in Newfoundland at the dockyard-one of the most sensible propositions that was ever made-does not matter to this government. All that matters to this government is the most odious kind of patronage. It reeks of it. The government is up to its knees in it; it is up to its nose in patronage practice; it is over its nose in it so it cannot even smell it.
What has happened to syncro-lift now, Mr. Speaker? The Newfoundland government, the second poorest government in Canada at this time, is providing the money to Canadian National so that they will go ahead with syncro-lift. The province is putting up $10 million for the project; $6.5 million alone to be repaid from hoped for profits, and the rest from subsidy and interest costs. The province is forced to do that because the Government of Canada, which owns that dockyard and which has CN operate it for them, through political spite, through political meanness, through political chicanery, through political treachery and trickery of the worst type, cancelled a project which they had promised before the election of 1979 and again promised through their candidate in 1980 because it was in a district held by a Conservative. Well, that will be a district held by a Conservative for 100 years to
Transportation
come at the minimum, or even for 114 years, longer than the Constitution we have today, because the people down there will never forget the odious betrayal of that project.
The minister has not disclosed the spending envelope for Newfoundland; that is to be a secret. He does not want to tell us this when he is discussing his multimodal, his envelopes and his trade-offs. He does not even want to tell us what is in the envelope. Come on, Mr. Minister, tell us what is in it. Is it $100 million, $200 million, $500 million or $50 million? Does he include the channel or ferry subsidy and the coastal Newfoundland and Labrador shipping service? Let us know what is in that envelope, what are the trade-offs that had to be made, and what are the multimodals that had to be modulated, or whatever the right word is-these multimodal-nadals or mul-tinadal-modals, whatever the new buzz word is. Otto Lang used to talk about user-pay; we know where Otto Lang is now. The minister is now talking about multimodals, and we know where you are going to be, Mr. Minister, after the next election. You had better hold tight in Ottawa. There is not another part of the country in which you are safe. Do not move out of your seat. Once my French is improved, I am going to run against you in Quebec. I will challenge you to run down there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: However, 1 want my French to be considerably improved before that time comes!
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is the matter of the St. John's harbour, which is right off these two huge oil Fields, the Hibernia, and the Hebron which has just been discovered. We are into big time down there, whether it is federally or provincially owned, and we have a port which does not even have a tug that can be used outside the narrows. There is no fire tug, no fire protection.
What can the government do about these problems? 1 know the minister is not made of money, but some initiative must be taken. Today, this port is not self-sustaining. What will happen to the facilities there? The longshoremen in the port are exercising their right to go to the Liberal members of the House of Assembly. They went to the federal Minister of National Revenue about the problem there with containerization, the fact that shed No. 1 might be removed, and there is a hope that it could be used for the reefer freezing proposal.
I wrote the minister on February 18. I would hate to have the minister's portfolio. I like the minister, although I have to criticize him. I know he has tremendous problems. You need six ministers there. The longshoremen wrote him on February 18 and contacted the Liberal members in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland, among them one Stephen Neary, or "Foghorn Neary" because you can hear him from St. John's to Vancouver when he is speaking in the House of Assembly. They contacted also the federal Minister of National Revenue. What will happen as a result of that? That was almost a month ago. My constituents are used to hearing from me promptly. They are not used to the fact that I have to deal with dilatory ministers from whom I cannot get answers.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
I think my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. We have multidimensional, multimodal, multitudinous problems. In our region, the Atlantic region, economic development still has to be the main purpose of transportation activity. The hardhearted minister here, who already has a deficit of $13.7 billion, should be encouraged to stop putting $3.8 million into a subsidy on incoming oil, and so on. He should have a sensible policy on that and devote half of that $3.8 million to the Atlantic provinces and their transportation needs. He should forget the envelope, forget multimodal, and forget the tradeoffs; there are none, and we cannot afford them.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Here comes the killer!


Roger Simmons: -they are all in a very lively mood this afternoon after that brilliant speech from my good friend the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). It was short on facts and long on brilliance.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Roger Simmons: I say to him: welcome back to the House. We missed him during the last month or two. It is nice to have him back in the chamber. We might not agree with all he says, but it is always good to sit back and listen to him. He is always entertaining, although not terribly factual. Welcome back to the House, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is very multimodal of you.


Roger Simmons: The hon. member spoke about his party having priorities other than the Constitution. Well, I am glad he told us because, judging by his party's performance in the House during the past few months, one has to wonder if they have any priority except holding us down forever on the Constitution. I hope that with the new insight he shared with the House today, he will talk to his caucus tomorrow morning and persuade his members of the value of getting off this constitutional filibuster, this foolish kick they are on these days, and get on with the business of the House so we can bring in some other subjects for debate, such as transportation, a priority with this government.


An hon. Member:: Talk to your own House leader.


Roger Simmons: It is very much up to the Tories at this point whether we debate the constitutional issue for the next month, two months or three months. The hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) knows that I have spoken to my House leader and we are heart to heart on this one. We know exactly where we are going. We know how we are going to vote. We know we are going to vote that way on the Constitution because it is going to be a wise decision, a decision for which this country, and even the member for St. John's West, will thank us in years to come. As soon as they allow us to do
it, we will get on with it. So 1 ask him to persuade his colleagues to get off that filibuster as soon as they can.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I get to the substance of what I want to say this afternoon, there is another item which really needs a response, an item which the hon. member for St. John's West raised. He spoke about my hon. friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) having been in his portfolio for 13 months, and he asked what he had done in that time. I believe the Minister of Transport gave a very good account of himself in the limited time he had this afternoon in terms of what he had done in that 13 months. It is a pretty fair record.
I will tell the House and the hon. member for St. John's West that one thing the minister has not done in the last 13 months is that he has not participated in a cabinet decision to freeze all fisheries projects in Atlantic Canada. I say that because it is one of the things the hon. member for St. John's West did in his nine months in cabinet. He participated in a cabinet decision to freeze every wharf and small craft harbours project in Atlantic Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and also on a question of privilege. The parliamentary secretary is saying an untruth. If he continues to say it, he will be saying an untruth knowingly, which would be a lie. There was no such decision made by our cabinet. If there had been such a decision, I would not have remained in the cabinet. It would have been the most stupid decision I had ever heard of. So he is incorrect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That sounds very much like debate. I think the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) should continue his remarks.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for St. John's West cannot help but be tender on this particular issue. I can document it for him, if he wants it documented. He does not want it documented, of course; it is the last thing he wants. I can get all kinds of documentation on this particular point. I can go to almost every community in my riding of Burin-St. George's for starters. I can go to places where projects were already approved, ready to go, the funding had been set aside, and then the Tories came along and every project, without exception-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The parliamentary secretary made the statement, first, that when 1 was in cabinet a decision was made by cabinet to stop every fishery project in eastern Canada or in Newfoundland; that was the statement. It was not that there were some projects in Burin-St. George's that were stopped or not stopped. There was a statement made that our cabinet, our government, made a decision to stop spending on all fishery projects. I say that is not correct; there is not a word of truth in it. I deny it absolutely. Therefore, the member either has to
March 17, 1981

withdraw that statement or back it up; he must do one or the other.
That is my question of privilege. If he does not do that, then I will be calling him other names which will bring this to an issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is my understanding of privilege that the hon. member's rights are being affected; but my appreciation of the hon. member's remarks is that this is response to debate and I must treat it as such. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) may not accept what the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is saying, but this is the cut and thrust of debate, and I must see it as such.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of the cut and thrust of debate. This is a statement made by one member, the truth of which is categorically denied by another member. If this question of privilege is not dealt with now, I will give notice that it will be brought up tomorrow when we have today's record.
The parliamentary secretary made a statement which I say is false; it is not true. This is not a matter of the cut and thrust of debate. I am not allowed to lie about something in this House or tell an untruth, and the other hon. member is not allowed to do it either. I am categorically denying the statement that the Conservative government, under the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), froze all fishery projects in eastern Canada. This is just not true. The hon. member should either withdraw that statement or back it up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West keeps debating the point.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not debating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am afraid that it will continue and continue. The Chair has made a ruling. Of course, the hon. member cannot appeal that ruling. The debate must continue, and I recognize the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will bring it up tomorrow.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that when a member makes a statement in the House, another member must accept that statement and not continue saying something that is wrong. That is an ordinary, every day parliamentary rule.
I think Your Honour should order the member on the Liberal side who is speaking to stop making a statement the truth of which has already been denied by another member. That is just ordinary parliamentary courtesy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That may be legitimately raised as a point of order, but I must insist on recognizing the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


John Carnell Crosbie: He should back up his statement.
Transportation


Roger Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his "Taylor" rules of procedure. I am sure we would not find anything in Bourinot, Beauchesne or Erskine May to back up what he said, but that is another issue.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is ordinary common sense and good manners.


Roger Simmons: Part of the ordinary common sense and good manners about which the hon. member for Bow River is concerned, although he keeps interrupting me-


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is ordinary common sense.


Roger Simmons: Perhaps what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell the truth.


Roger Simmons: First, I say that I intend to tell the truth. I have already told the truth on the issue and I shall continue to do so, if the hon. member for Bow River will give me the opportunity. I listened to him courteously and in silence. I did not agree with what he was saying. I did not think, under the circumstances, that it made a terrible amount of sense, but I listened to him.
To respond to the hon. member for Bow River first of all, it seems to me, if we accept his newly-devised rule that one member has always to accept the word of another, that we will be in one awful hassle in this House. As soon as someone stands up and says, "This is not true for these reasons", then someone else has to bow to him and say, "I bow to your good judgment." On this one, it is not a question of bowing to the good judgment of the hon. member for St. John's West; it is a case of being able to say, with truth and with complete conviction, that the Tories froze the fisheries projects. That is what I said and that is what I stand by. It is his privilege to raise the issue at the appropriate time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's said that I personally participated in a cabinet decision by the Tory government to freeze all fishing projects. He has changed his wording now; he is saying that it was to freeze fishing projects-


Roger Simmons: I am elaborating.


John Carnell Crosbie: He alleged that there was a cabinet decision by the Tory government to freeze all fishing projects in eastern Canada or in Newfoundland. We will have the exact words in Hansard.
Now, I say that is wrong; it is not true; it is untrue. If the hon. member continues to make that statement, I further say that he is deliberately making an untrue statement and he is an unmitigated liar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am afraid the hon. member for St. John's West is using unparliamentary language. It is incumbent upon the Chair to draw that to his attention at this time.

March 17, 1981
Transportation


Roger Simmons: Withdraw!


John Carnell Crosbie: Draw it to the attention of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 invite the hon. member for St. John's West to withdraw the unparliamentary language he just used.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, not to put you in an embarrassing position, I will withdraw the statement, but this matter will be carried further tomorrow. I am giving notice now of a definite question of privilege; written notice will be given tomorrow. I am not going to countenance this kind of chicanery and fabrication in the chamber. Since I cannot call the member that, I will withdraw it; but as soon as I get outside the House I will tell the world what I think he is.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, perhaps when the hon. member for St. John's West does what he has undertaken to do, he might also do the House the honour of telling it about any fisheries project his administration allowed to go ahead. There was not one; they froze every last project during their entire nine months in office. Let him contradict the truth of that statement, Mr. Speaker. They froze every last project.
I do not know where he was when the decision was made. Perhaps he was in South Africa somewhere. I do not know where he was. All 1 know is that the decision was taken and acted upon. The result was that every small craft harbour project in my riding, and many other ridings I could name if I had the time, was frozen during the period of that administration. If that irks him, Mr. Speaker, I am glad it does. Perhaps he has learned his lesson. Perhaps he has realized that they did the wrong thing by socking it to the fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland. Perhaps they got that message at long last.


John Carnell Crosbie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Conservative government did not freeze all those projects. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that prevarication of this type is not often heard in this chamber. It is pure fabrication. It is multimodal in its dimensions. It is Manchausen. The gentleman's nose will reach across the chamber soon, if he continues these whoppers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Again I must rule that it is not a point of order. I once more recognize the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, let there be no misunderstanding. What the argument here is about, and what the hon. member for St. John's West and I disagree on, is that I say he, his administration and his colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), persuaded the administration not to go ahead with one of the fisheries projects, even those which had been put in place and for which funding had been made available. They arranged to have a complete freeze on them.
I am not surprised that the hon. member leaves the chamber at this particular time. It must be absolute shame which motivates him, now that he is reminded about this dastardly thing which he perpetrated on the fishermen of Atlantic Canada a year or so ago when he briefly sat in office.
He has decided to return, Mr. Speaker. While he is here let me turn to another issue which he raised. He talked about this administration doing some things for Liberals. I want him to know that it is difficult not to do things for Liberals, since there are so many of them in this country. It would be difficult to avoid doing things for them.


Mr. Mayer:: Tell us how many there are in western Canada.


Roger Simmons: The larger question is: What has he got against Liberals? He was one for years. He even wanted to be the leader of all the Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador at one point, until they rejected him. He even participated in the choice of my present leader. He was there, as I was. I was there at that 1968 convention when he proudly waved the banner for the present leader of the Liberal Party in Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have repented since.


Roger Simmons: What has he suddenly got against Liberals, Mr. Speaker? Is his memory on this subject as short as it was on the small craft harbour projects a few moments ago?


Mr. Mazankowski:: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect the hon. member who is speaking, but I wonder if you would remind him, Mr. Speaker, of the content of the motion before the House for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 thank the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for his observations. The Chair was, in fact, about to ask the hon. member for Burin-St. George's to stick to the subject matter at hand.


Roger Simmons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had strayed in the sense that I had assumed that in responding to the irrelevan-cies of the hon. member for St. John's West I was thereby being no more irrelevant. But I take direction from the Chair.
I was wanting to make in passing a quick plea to the hon. member, since during the course of his speech he did attack rather viciously an individual who is not a member of this chamber and one who cannot protect himself. He cannot come here and defend himself against the allegations and innuendoes that the gentleman from St. John's West raised against him. I think that is very unfortunate and very unbecoming of any member of this chamber. 1 hoped that he would have avoided doing that, but instead he went on and attacked rather viciously a gentleman who happens to live in Labrador, in the province of Newfoundland. He attacked him by name again and again with the most vicious and low innuendo. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and it should not have happened.
The hon. member also talks about the Trans-Canada highway agreement which has not been signed. He is right on that particular point. But, as usual, as often is the case, he is right for the wrong reasons. Had he listened to the Minister of
. . .
March 17, 1981

Transport, he would have heard, as the rest of us did, just a few minutes before he made the charge about the TCH agreement, exactly why the agreement has not been signed. He would also have heard him say, as I and others in this chamber did, that he is going next week to meet, in what has become a continuing series of meetings, with the Premier of Newfoundland and the minister of transport, Mr. Brett, on this very subject and other subjects as well. This federal administration has made proposals to the government of Newfoundland on this and other subjects. We have been waiting for a response from them. It does take two to make an agreement. Hopefully in the next week or so, when the Minister of Transport of Canada meets with his counterpart at the provincial level in Newfoundland, we will see this matter, among others, ironed out.
The member for St. John's West also rails on about what this government is not doing for airports. Again, why does he not just listen a little? Only in the last few days there has been an announcement, and my good friend from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has a particular interest in this one. Indeed, he participated in the announcement that this administration is spending SI.7 million in Stephenville and $1.2 million in Deer Lake this year. The member for St. John's West implies that we have not made up our mind with respect to those airports. We have done so and we are very much in favour of keeping both airports open. That announcement was made publicly. We are committed to keeping both airports open. The hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe is to be particularly congratulated for his efforts in this respect. He has delivered.
Indeed, he has delivered to a larger degree, I must say, than the provincial minister of transport has delivered on this issue. Only this week he literally gave up the ghost, threw up his hands and said that if that is what Mr. Steele wants to do, then we will have to go along with it. We do not have to go along with it. I appeal to the minister of transport in Newfoundland to get some fight in him and to put the case for the two airports at Stephenville and Deer Lake. If we had the minister of transport for Newfoundland on our side on this one, perhaps, at least, we would have an extra ally; and perhaps we would have more of a chance to save Mr. Steele and others who are involved in the decision from reneging on this issue and to keep the two services operating.
I realize my time is nearing an end. There was one other issue, which is the issue of the St. John's syncro-lift, about which I would like to speak. I find it regrettable that I have had to use most of my time to respond to inaccuracies put before the House by the hon. member for St. John's West. He rails on about our role with respect to the syncro-lift. He was the minister in the federal cabinet representing Newfoundland for nine months. During those nine months he did not lift one single finger to move the St. John's syncro-lift proposal forward. He never lifted a single finger. It is all very nice to get out and make pompous statements in the press about what the government should be doing, but when he was part of the government, Mr. SDeaker, the question is: What did he do? He
Transportation
never lifted one single finger to advance the cause of the St. John's syncro-lift. For the entire nine months that gentleman, whose riding is close to where this facility is, failed to lift one finger. Let him call that an untruth.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, it is a complete untruth.


Roger Simmons: He knows the difference, Mr. Speaker. He knows very well that if his record with respect to this synchrolift is scrutinized carefully, he will not come out very much on top of this one. The people of his riding will realize what we in this chamber already realize, and that is that he has been big on talk when it comes to the synchrolift but very short on delivery.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I hope my few comments will have contributed to the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate condemning the failure of the government to deal adequately with national transportation matters, and specifically condemning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
Transportation issues are a matter of vital importance to the whole of this vast country. I would like to spend the next few minutes emphasizing the importance of a strong, functional and efficient transportation system to my province of Prince Edward Island, a province which, like many others, has been sorely neglected by the federal Department of Transport.
Over 100 years ago, in 1873, Prince Edward Island entered confederation. One of the conditions upon which it joined this country was that the federal government should establish and maintain transportation links between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada. I quote:
Federal authorities agreed to take over the railway guarantee and establish and maintain efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers . .. between the Island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer-
In 1873, as today, it is vital that Prince Edward Island have an efficient, functional transportation system. It is unfortunate that the federal government has seen fit to renege on its transportation commitments to Prince Edward Island. In all facets of Island transportation-rail service, shipping by water, air transportation, highway development and car ferry services-the federal government has failed to live up to its promises to provide and maintain efficient service for Islanders.
In order for our agricultural and fisheries industries to remain viable, an upgrading of the systems that transport their products to market must take place. The tourism industry also depends heavily on how efficiently the transportation service to and on Prince Edward Island is operating. We need better roads, better port facilities, an improved ferry and rail service and an overhaul of air service. We need the assistance of the federal Department of Transport, assistance which has been sadly lacking.
8342

March 17, 1981
Transportation
One of the Island's main transportation worries is the need for rail improvements. There is a definite need to upgrade and maintain rail lines, and a need for research and development on improving rail service. In recent years there has been a trend toward shipping by road rather than by rail. Islanders feel strongly that rail service will always be needed, and therefore it should be properly maintained and its efficiency increased.
In the present situation where eastern Canada is completely dependent upon its offshore petroleum supplies, it is only prudent to achieve fuel conservation by carrying more of our goods by rail and less by truck. Truck freighting also places a heavy burden on the provincial department of highways, because due to our soil conditions and unavailability of suitable road-building materials, coupled with our climate, it is almost impossible, without prohibitive expense, to try to maintain roads to carry a large volume of heavy trucks. Owing to the increased tractor-trailer truck traffic over Prince Edward Island highways, the roads are deteriorating rapidly, and this is in part due to the reduction in proper rail service.
The way Canadian National has neglected the rail system on Prince Edward Island is deplorable. Canadian National is even considering abandoning 80 miles of Prince Edward Island's total of 275 miles of rail line. Prince Edward Island needs its rail system and everything possible should be done to retain it. The federal government must consider, as a high priority, action to have Canadian National rebuild its railway lines in Prince Edward Island, and otherwise increase its efficiency to reverse the present trend toward road freighting.
The present condition of the Prince Edward Island railbed and level of service has made it difficult for Island shippers to meet their objectives. Prince Edward Island potato growers have to use obsolete rail cars and face inadequate or wrongly placed storage capacity, and misunderstandings over costs, which have produced an unsatisfactory transportation system. Given the nature of the highly competitive potato industry, which I am sure hon. members are aware is a major contributor to the Prince Edward Island economy, it is essential that Island shippers are able to meet stringent market demands in terms of quality of product and delivery time. Island shippers have been experiencing difficulty in obtaining sufficient equipment, both insulated boxcars and piggyback units. The potato industry is most optimistic this year, after three disastrous years, and early movements, particularly by rail, attest to this fact.
It is essential that Canadian National provide the Island, this year and in the future, with sufficient equipment to move the potato crop. The federal government cannot afford to neglect this important aspect of Prince Edward Island's transportation and economy.
I want to touch briefly on a matter which I have already mentioned in reference to rail service, and it is with regard to the highways on Prince Edward Island and in the other two maritime provinces. As a means of achieving greater uniformity in trucking regulations, Transport Canada and the Atlantic provinces undertook a cost-shared, primary highway upgrading in 1977. The first phase of this program was completed over a period of three years, and the maritime provinces- Newfoundland is negotiating separately-are seeking federal funding to proceed on the same cost-sharing basis with phase 2 of the program.
To further the federal objective of achieving greater uniformity of trucking regulations, it is necessary that the federal government and the Department of Transport continue costsharing the highway strengthening program begun in 1977 with the maritime provinces. The minister should take immediate steps to provide funding for the second phase of this vitally important program so that the maritime provinces can resume construction.
The quality of transportation within Prince Edward Island is an important factor in determining whether Islanders are willing and able to live in the rural areas of the province. The importance of the paving and maintenance of Island roads cannot be too strongly emphasized. Prince Edward Island depends on the cost-sharing arrangement with the federal government so that its roads can continue to be reconstructed and upgraded. I hope the federal government will choose not to disappoint us in this respect, as it has on other transportation issues.
I would like to dwell on an aspect of the marine transport system which affects Prince Edward Island greatly, and that is the ferry service linking the Island to the mainland of Canada. The ferry system provides a vital link to Prince Edward Island. Ferry travel should cost no more than travel over a similar distance on the Trans-Canada highway. The cost of travelling on the ferries should be the same as it would cost an ordinary person to travel nine miles by car on a section of the Trans-Canada highway. Therefore, it appalls me to think that right now Treasury Board is considering a Transport Canada recommendation to increase most maritime ferry fares by an average of 12.5 per cent. I am even more appalled by the fact that neither the provincial government of Prince Edward Island nor any interested Island organizations were given the opportunity to review the Canadian Transport Commission recommendations and decision concerning ferry rate increases.
Many Island industries and Islanders depend entirely for their livelihood on the marine transportation links to Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island's tourism industry, in particular, is directly affected by ferry rate increases; in excess of 50 per cent of the visitors to Prince Edward Island come from the Atlantic region. Any additional ferry rate increase at this time would make travel to Prince Edward Island an additional hardship within a region of Canada that now has more than its share of regional economic disparities.
The tourism industry is a major one in Prince Edward Island, and about half of the traffic that comes to the Island comes by ferry. Tourism has received inequitable treatment over the past years relative to ferry rates when compared with other segments of Prince Edward Island's economy, and any unilateral rate increases at this time would further compound the inequities. Tourism is a major industry on Prince Edward Island and is labour-intensive, which is the type of industry the
March 17, 1981

Island and Canada need because of the major unemployment problem throughout the country today. Increasing ferry rates would do a great injustice to the economy of Prince Edward Island as it would have an inflationary effect which would hurt all sectors of the Island economy.
I have in my hand a telex, dated today, which was sent to the Minister of Transport. It is from Don Reid, the president of the Tourism Industry Association of P.E.I. He starts out by saying:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Your telex of March 13, 1981, leaves little doubt that it is the intention of Transport Canada to proceed with ferry rate increases not having truly taken into consideration the strong objections of the members of this major industry in Prince Edward Island.
He goes on:
To say it is regrettable that rate changes could not be dealt with earlier is somewhat absurd, considering the fact that CN Marine had submitted rate proposals as early as July 1980, and no consultative action was taken with this major industry and, to the best of our knowledge little if any consultation was conducted with the provincial government or CN Marine-
To say that bus tours or the distribution of schedules would not be unduly affected is as good as calling the major bus carriers and CN Marine fly-by-nite operators who do not have to budget for their operations.
The telex is rather long. I will dispense with reading all of it, and go to the last paragraph:
We again urge you and your colleagues to forgo the application of any changes in ferry rates to P.E.I. and immediately commence serious discussions with the appropriate government departments, carriers and industries for the 1982 season and beyond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melbourne Alexander Gass: If the federal government insists on going ahead with ferry rate increases, it could at least afford affected parties an opportunity to discuss, negotiate and present objective concerns. There must be consultation between the federal government, tourist operators and others affected by an increase in ferry rates. But then again, this government does not place a very high priority on consultation, does it? I hope the Minister of Transport will ensure that ferry rates do not increase until such time as a complete review has taken place, and all sectors of the Island economy are afforded ample opportunity to present their views on the matter.
Before I leave the question of ferries, I would like to comment on another aspect of the Prince Edward Island ferry system where the federal government is again dragging its heels. The report of Transport Canada's Prince Edward Island-mainland transportation study, released in 1976, recommended that a new 150-car vessel be placed in service between Wood Island, Prince Edward Island, and Caribou, Nova Scotia, by 1979. The proposed vessel would greatly reduce the intolerable congestion at the ferry terminals and thus would help eliminate one of the worst barriers to the continued development of the Island's basic industries. It would also substantially increase the efficiency of the Wood Island-Caribou ferry operation as the ratio of vehicle capacity to crew members would more than double. It is now 1981 and there is
Transportation
no new ferry. When will the minister heed the recommendation of his department and proceed with the construction of the required new ferry?
Prince Edward Island's other link to the mainland is through its air service. At this time we who live on the Island are waiting for the start of construction of a new terminal building for the Charlottetown airport, and we have been waiting for a very long time. The Charlottetown airport redevelopment has become a matter of considerable concern to Prince Edward Island. There have been conflicting reports and controversy regarding this project, as well as a lack of good communications.
Three years ago, the federal and provincial governments reached an agreement on the building of a new airport for Prince Edward Island. Construction of a new terminal and related projects was to begin in September, 1978, at a cost of $21.5 million. Shortly after this agreement was reached. Treasury Board ordered that the size of the proposed airport terminal be reduced, to save $1.5 million. The federal government then proceeded with plans to design a scaled-down airport terminal building, with a second and separate control tower. The airport was to be expandable as the need might arise.
The people of Prince Edward Island have waited long enough for their badly-needed new airport terminal building. The prolonged delay in the construction of the new terminal building since the federal-provincial agreement was reached, not to mention the additional cost of the redesign ordered by the Treasury Board, has actually increased the cost of the project rather than reduced it. In the past, the Liberal government wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on a constant patching up and extension of the present terminal facilities. This is another indication of the inefficiency of the Department of Transport. In the meantime, the deplorable congestion at the old terminal has worsened to the point that the airport can no longer meet current needs, much less keep up with the increase in passenger usage and cargo handling which is projected for the future.
As the gateway to Prince Edward Island for many visitors, the existing wartime-vintage airport is nothing less than a disgrace to our province. I sincerely mean that. Municipal airports in many small communities across Canada provide better facilities than our own on Prince Edward Island. Yet our airport is required to serve an entire province, not just one municipality. The continued postponement and delay in proceeding with the terminal building component of the Charlottetown airport redevelopment project has inconvenienced the travelling public; it has prolonged the uncertainty with respect to transportation planning in Prince Edward Island; it has added greatly to the frustration of Islanders with respect to federal projects; and it has increased the cost to the taxpayer beyond what would have been the original cost had the project been pursued with dispatch.
There is also concern about the fact that Charlottetown is the only provincial capital that does not have provision for customs clearance at its airport, and there are no plans for

March 17, 1981
Transportation
such provision in the proposed new airport terminal building. This means that flights from outside the country, including charters from the United States, cannot land at Charlottetown. Prince Edward Island is losing potential tourists and tourist dollars because of this fact. Because there is no customs clearance in Charlottetown airport, Islanders who want to go out of the country cannot go directly from Charlottetown but have to go to Halifax, Montreal or Toronto for customs clearance.
We in Prince Edward Island should not have to settle for such second-class treatment at the hands of the federal government. Transport Canada should proceed without further delay with the construction of a new air terminal building. The Department of Transport should proceed in accordance with the design that was completed and agreed to in 1977. We on the Island need a well-equipped air terminal which will meet our needs for the foreseeable future and which will be a credit to our province, not a disgrace.
At noon today we met with Mr. Bill Rowe of Air Canada. He advised us that Air Canada will spend $68,000 on the terminal at Charlottetown as it is in such deplorable condition.
There is another issue with which I should like to deal briefly in the time remaining to me, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the reduction in the number of CN Express offices in Charlottetown. On January 30 I put a question to the Minister of Transport which is reported at page 6735 of Hansard as follows:
My question to the minister is: will he now tell this House if the Express offices in Charlottetown and some other maritime centres will remain open and what level of service can be expected?
My supplementary question was as follows:
-I would like to ask the minister how many of the 41 employees in Charlottetown will be allowed to retain their jobs.
The minister responded by saying that the figures would be repeated on Monday. On Monday nothing happened. Five days later, on February 4, my colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) asked the following question of the same minister:
Will the minister tell the House how many CN Express employees will be kept in the two centres? Could he also tell the House what level of service will be maintained in those two Express terminals-
The minister's answer, in part, was as follows:
The employment level will be at about half what it is now, that is 19 people in Charlottetown-
I have before me, Mr. Speaker, the contents of a letter which were related to me by telephone. On March 16, Mr. R. O. Waterton, the regional manager of CN Express in Moncton, sent a letter to Mr. MacPherson, the manager of CN Express in Charlottetown. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr. J. L. Diorio, general manager of operations for CN Express in Montreal. Mr. Waterton's interpretation of the agreement at CN Express Charlottetown is that it provides for about 19 jobs, consisting of the 14 established positions, including the manager, with five spare and relief. The five spare and relief are to cover all operations under the union agreement, including the Servo-Centre, the Enter-Model, which is piggyback,
and the maintenance shop. It would therefore appear that there are not 19 positions, since 14 is not 19. The minister has not fulfilled his commitment made in this House on February 4, 1981, as recorded at page 6874 of Hansard, when he said that there would be 19 positions in Charlottetown.
I conclude by saying that the people in P.E.I. and the people at CN Express are terribly disappointed that the minister has not fulfilled his promise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my congratulations to you on being elevated to the Chair. By way of explanation, this is my first opportunity to do so. As a colleague from the province of New Brunswick, 1 am delighted in the choice and I wish you well.

I want to extend my congratulations to you and to wish you well in the discharge of your duties.

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who I am sure laboured long hours to prepare this list of nine detailed and complex items relating to transportation, specifically in Atlantic Canada. It affords me an opportunity to speak at length with regard to all aspects of transportation, not only in the Atlantic region, and to refer specifically to problems in the northern part of New Brunswick.
Before dealing with some of those problems, I want to respond to some of the remarks by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass). While we have only had the opportunity of observing that member in recent times, I found it strange that he was not thankful for the funds directed to his province by the federal government which, on close examination, are substantial. That province with a population of 120,000 enjoys approximately 80 cents on the dollar of federal money transferred to it for all its operations, not to mention the dollars spent by Transport Canada and CN Marine which provide First class ferry service, comparable to that anywhere in Canada and in many other countries.
On many occasions I have used that service to take my family for our annual vacation to beautiful Prince Edward Island. I have personally utilized the ferry service from Tor-mentine to Borden. The equipment and the service provided cannot be criticized. I realize the hon. member for Malpeque is from that province and was expressing his concerns, but I should point out the seriousness on the part of this administration in putting a substantial number of federal dollars into the CN ferry service between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Another point that could be flagged is the fact that the hon. member for Malpeque did not enlighten us as to why all these things were not done when his party was in government. There was equal opportunity at that time for the then minister of transport and his cabinet colleagues to do what he complained
March 17, 1981

of this afternoon. I did not think it wise to allow those comments to go by without referring to the fact that the present administration has consistently placed high priority on the matter of transportation.
Where would Atlantic Canada be without Transport Canada? I am sure the hon. member who introduced this motion on behalf of the official opposition has thought over this question for many years. He is one of the benefactors of the many millions of dollars transferred to the Atlantic region in one form or another, whether in the general transfer payments, contained in the main estimates in transport or in some other way.
1 agree we cannot expect to have progress without a positive policy to develop all aspects of transportation in Atlantic Canada. We certainly have not reached the time when we can move away from that position and turn our backs on transportation. The Atlantic region is still in the very important developing stage.
In relation to the first item in the motion regarding regional development, I wholeheartedly endorse the need to continuously allocate funds within the budget to developing transportation, surface, water and air. We are no different from any other part of Canada; we are no different than any other region when it comes to those needs.
In the province of New Brunswick we have had a sad experience with the present provincial administration regarding the fairness of planning, the strategy of developing priorities and allocating funds to this very important matter. That administration cannot expect the handout of federal funds forever. If they have not already received the message, let me make it clear this afternoon. If they do not mature in their thinking and realize that this cannot be permitted to continue in the fashion it has over the years, they might well find themselves in the position of having to find other ways and means to prop up and finance some of their pet projects in that province.
If the Premier of New Brunswick and the transportation minister there do not soon get their act together, they will not only be behind the eight ball, but they will be so far out of touch with reality in this country in terms of transportation it will not be funny. I know of what I speak. We have been dillied and dallied and nickeled and dimed to death by the premier and his advisers and those responsible for transportation with regard to building the important section of Route 11, not to mention highway No. 17.


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As has been necessary once before today, I might remind the Chair that there is such a thing as relevancy. We are not debating the merits or otherwise of the government of Richard Hatfield. We are dealing with federal policies and actions respecting transportation in Atlantic Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has made his point. The Chair was listening attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). Although he may
Transportation
have been stretching the rule of relevancy to its greatest extent, it is the Chair's opinion it was done within the wide confines of this subject matter. Having heard the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, the hon. member for Restigouche should attempt to return to the central subject being discussed today.


Maurice James Harquail: Of course, Mr. Speaker, you have just justified my congratulations to you in demonstrating your ability in the chair, but let me remind the hon. member through you that he placed it as item number one in his preamble leading into the motion we are considering today. What could be more pertinent to the subject we are debating.
Item one talked about regional economic development and that is what I am speaking about, at this particular moment, in relation to the dastardly attitude of the present administration of that province who, on the one hand, are very happy to come, on some occasions hat in hand, asking for these millions of dollars through DREE, through transportation policies, for the strengthening of highways, yet the minute they get the money in their grubby little hands you cannot find them or see what they are doing. They are so far away from the agreements, I can only re-emphasize the seriousness of it, that I wonder just exactly what decisions would flow from a serious investigation into where these funds have gone over the last ten or 15 years.
When I talk about funds, I am talking about over $100 million of taxpayers' money which has gone into that particular province, yet the job is far from finished. I am sure you will understand and appreciate why I take a moment to touch on this question. I am also taking advantage of this opportunity, as it is my responsibility representing as I do the constituency of Restigouche in this House, to say something regarding my dissatisfaction with the way those funds have been handled in the past and about my concern as to the way they will be handled in the future.
I do not know about others, but I am personally convinced by what I have said this afternoon that I have made the point quite clear so I will not spend too much more time on that. While I could probably speak for an hour to an hour and a half on the sad tales of woe regarding the negligent administration, as I call it, of those funds we have been so generous in transferring to that particular province, all I am going to say now is that I want to see that section of Route 11 between Belledune and Charlo complete without any more hanky-panky. I want to see the completion of that important sector of route 17 from St. Leonard down through Campbellton which has also been fiddled and nickeled and dimed and played with for the last ten to 15 years. The people are just simply fed up with it and through you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to invite and enjoin the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to personally look into this and apprise himself and his officials of what has happened in the past with the hope that when we negotiate strengthening of highways and the matter of new construction and consideration of the general development agreement and any other subagreement relating to highways, or any other

March 17, 1981
Transportation
development money from the national government to that province, he will watch that development with a very close eye.
I would like to seek his assurance that he will personally take a hand in making sure that these funds will be spent where they are specifically allocated.
Having remarked on the question of highways, I want to now turn to the question of ports. As I mentioned earlier, I do not know what we would do in Atlantic Canada without Transport Canada and I like to say thank you when it is due. 1 want to express words of appreciation to the minister for all that has been done for us in recent years, specifically since he has become the minister, in terms of his personal concern. This is not only a verbal concern, for I know the work he is putting into this problem, on all aspects of transportation in that region; but I am also convinced it is almost a monumental task for one man to try and find the answers to all of these questions. To be able to negotiate the funds from the treasury benches and his colleagues in cabinet is no small task and I want to publicly assure the minister of my support for the negotiations that will have to go on until we find all those dollars so vitally necessary for us to even say we have arrived at a point where we can come to a fair comparison of what is going on in central Canada and, indeed, in western Canada.
Just to comment, Mr. Speaker, when you hear what 1 would call in some cases foolish talk about the attitude in western Canada, we know it is a very small percentage of people who are playing the Lougheed game of more gain for that particular province. When you look at the budget and see the commitment of this government, the billions of dollars that are going to be spent out there, a large part of it with respect to transportation, I do not think they have anything to cry about at all, especially when you consider some of the problems we have in the Atlantic area. If we could just get a balance in the money spent in the west with that spent in the Atlantic provinces, I would say we would be a pretty fair distance down the road of not only addressing our problems but, indeed, of solving some of them.
When I look at the figure of $2,252,000 in National Harbours Board for the very important port of Belledune in my constituency, and I look at the $231 million being spent in Montreal, and there are others such as Vancouver and Churchill, I think that very rapidly makes my point about equality and balancing in the budget, and about finding the necessary dollars to put into facilities and equipment in order to keep up with the modern demands on a port such as Belledune.
Now, these things do not happen by themselves. Not too long ago I had a meeting with the president of that "C" class corporation, Pierre Franche, and others, who have given me a breath of hope. We are talking about the whole question of ports policy raised by the hon. member in this motion today, the need to get on with the ports policy and all the rest of it. There is no question about that, and we know some of the positive effects that will come from the opportunity to debate this in the House, because the fragmented legislation and inconsistent administration in each of the existing situations
inhibits the development of a national and regional ports policy and planning, and prevents local participation in the operation and management of national harbours boards. Certainly we want to clear that up as quickly as possible, get the input of local people, address the problems and get on with solving them.
There is no question in my mind that we must have co-operation in this House in order that we can bring forward appropriate legislation, when the minister has the opportunity, to put in place a modern approach to finding solutions to these problems. However I want to make it clear about the facilities at Belledune which has sometimes been referred to as a port that has ice problems; certainly in the last five to eight years that has not been so. I would term it as an ice-free port and it needs, and I underline "needs", more funds if it is to be utilized to its maximum. Of course, we all await the study that is coming out on the ports of Dalhousie and Belledune, which we hope will bring forward the appropriate recommendations to substantiate our case regarding the funds needed to develop both those important deep water ports; in the case of Dalhousie, some 36-foot draft, in Belledune's case some 30-foot draft, and in recent times being used more and more each year. But that is not enough. We must be aware of the increasing demands which are being made on those ports. We must make our case well if we are to get funds.
In the short time available today I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss questions respecting CN and the whole matter of CN Express, about which Your Honour and the minister will know I am not happy. I am not happy about lay-offs and the cutting back of that service in my constituency.
I hope subsequent reports brought forward by the Standing Committee on Transport will be concurred in so that we might debate the global, comprehensive and complex question of the present situation regarding CN and where CN will be going over the next five or ten years.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, when I came to this House initially at the pleasure of my constituency, I had hoped it would be my pleasure to find that Atlantic provinces members, and particularly New Brunswick members, would serve their province and their region in a fashion comparable to the way in which the west has been accustomed to being served by its members. With a degree of unanimity there has been a common presentation of western requirements by all parties in that region of Canada. I find it most disappointing to have listened to my colleague from New Brunswick saying little, if anything, for Atlantic Canada and virtually nothing for New Brunswick. As he arrived at the close of his remarks he did become somewhat sympathetic to Belledune, and he mentioned a very pertinent figure, namely, that $200 million were to be spent at the port of Montreal. I think the hon. member himself has put the emphasis on the problem which Atlantic transportation has experienced, and for that I thank him.
March 17, 1981


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 did not quote a figure of $200 million to be spent. To clarify for the hon. member and for the record, I was referring to financial operations as per Treasury Board expenditures at various ports, and 1 did mention that the total figure was $231,157,000 relating to the operations over a period of time at the Montreal airport, but I certainly was not, as the hon. member suggested, announcing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I should remind the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) that that, of course, is debate.


Fred Alward McCain: 1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was listening quite attentively, and if I misheard the hon. member, I apologize. However, he was talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars which are to be spent.
Now we come down to the situation in Atlantic Canada where we find that the port of Saint John is being advised that it must operate on a user-pay basis. We are also advised that the port of Montreal can never exist on a user-pay basis and that with the present amount of expenditure at that port they cannot see the day when user-pay can ever be applied in Montreal.
1 appeal to members from New Brunswick to say to this government that it is this government's responsibility not to put user-pay in the port of Saint John, the port of Halifax or any other port until all ports in Canada are capable of operating under that principle.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has not said the port of Montreal will not be on a user-pay basis, but I think he will agree with me that he has been advised by the officials of that port that there is no foreseeable date upon which the facilities at the port of Montreal can operate on a user-pay basis without serious detriment to the trade which would accrue to that port.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It already does.


Fred Alward McCain: Under circumstances which apply to no other port in Canada it appears to do so. It appears to do so. By virtue of sale of lands and accumulation of other assets, that no other port in the history of Canada has experienced, it has a cash backlog from which it can draw, and on that basis it appears to be operating on a user-pay basis, but on the actual cost of the facilities at the port of Montreal it is not. Each and every report of the Harbours Board of Canada illustrates that in the actual tonnage handled, if charged to the capital cost of the port of Montreal, it is not operating on a break-even or anything like a break-even basis. The port of Saint John, the port of Halifax and the port of Belledune have no other structure under which to operate and, therefore, when we compare the port of Montreal with these ports we are not comparing equivalents.
However, there was one single item in the news not too long ago illustrating that a $30 million federal expenditure was to be undertaken at the port of Montreal. I appeal to the hon.
Transportation
member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). This is in sharp contrast with the operational situation with respect to other ports in Atlantic Canada today. Provincial moneys are poured in to do this development; they are not poured in in the province of Quebec, and I ask for the support of hon. members. This should be turned around, and the facilities that are required should be supplied by the National Harbours Board through the Government of Canada.
Let me give one example of what has happened. The facilities at the port of Saint John were so overloaded that the Trucking Association of Atlantic Canada imposed a double charge because of delay in unloading caused by the facilities there not being able to handle the traffic Saint John can get. More facilities are needed for our trucking industry, for our lumber industry, for our agricultural industry, for our mining industry and across the board. We in Atlantic Canada want the same terms today that are being followed up the St. Lawrence River. We do not need any icebreakers. Give us the cost of icebreaking in Atlantic Canada on an annual basis and put some of it in Belledune. Put some of it in Dalhousie, some in Saint John and Halifax or wherever you like. If the Atlantic ports, including Belledune, had that money alone, they would be more than competitive with any structure which can be built in the St. Lawrence River fully at government expense. That is what I want by way of support from Atlantic members. You are complaining about spending $4 billion in the west for a multitude of purposes, including transportation. Why did you not as New Brunswick members extract-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) that as an experienced parliamentarian he should address his remarks to the Chair.


Fred Alward McCain: Through the Chair, why did these members from the province of New Brunswick not object to those expenditures then and extract something for New Brunswick?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member. If he has points of order or questions to ask in my limited time, why does he not be patient?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I certainly defer to the hon. member's years of experience in the House, but he knows full well that during a debate if a comment is made to which an hon. member takes exception, that hon. member raises a point of order, and I want to correct what he said. I did not say I was complaining about the money being spent. I said that if we could just get a fair share of those dollars, we would appreciate it.
While I am on my feet, I want to thank the hon. member for his support of Belledune and Dalhousie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That again is debate, and I should remind hon. members not to unduly interrupt hon. members who have the floor.

March 17, 1981
Transportation


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, my statement stands. If the hon. member did not complain, why did he not get something? Why did members from Atlantic Canada not look after Atlantic Canada? Instead of referring to what is being done elsewhere, if hon. members opposite could not complain, could they not at least have put in a word?
I plead with all hon. members of this House to take cognizance of what the situation is in Atlantic Canada. Like many other commitments, one of the commitments prior to confederation was that the markets of Canada would be available to Atlantic Canada under competitive circumstances. That was part of the terms of confederation. That, of course, included transportation. Again I say that Atlantic Canada members should put their pressure together and exert it as a political force on this or any other government. There would be much more productivity in the field of transportation if the problem were recognized and addressed by all of us.
May I call six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. When the House rose at 6 p.m., the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) had the floor.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to say the following respecting ports in eastern Canada. There has very obviously been an element of lack of consideration of the well-being of these ports. For instance, there has recently been a suggestion that an additional $1.66 should be charged as a new through-put charge in the port of Saint John, that it will apply at a latter date in the port of Halifax, and there is no indication as to whether or not it will ever apply in the port of Montreal. The policy does not reveal that this is discrimination.
I speak, Mr. Speaker, in a parochial sense, and I have to agree to that, but the year round ports of Canada should be considered to be the gateways of Canada to the world and planned for accordingly. They are gateways which Canada needs, and they must receive proper attention, whether they be in the north or the south of New Brunswick, whether they be in Nova Scotia or in Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: They are our gateways and they need the concern of the Minister of Transport. They should be given an equal break.
One other item to which I should like to refer is that mentioned by the hon. member for Restigouche when he
referred to the slow progress in the construction of route No.
11. I ask him to make another speech at a later date, after he has read the initial agreement for the construction of route No. 11 undertaken jointly by the Government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick, and after he has read the revised agreement and the reduction in the cost shared by the federal government, so that he will understand, in part at least, why that road has not progressed at the speed he would desire. The reason is the sharp reduction in the cost-sharing responsibility of the Government of Canada.
The number of ways in which transportation serves Atlantic Canada is so great it is impossible to mention them all. I want to mention the town of McAdam. The town of McAdam had a veneer mill established with DREE money. That mill found it could not ship its product by rail to destinations in Canada for two reasons: uncertainty of delivery-and I would like the minister to hear this-and the excessive damage caused in transit. Neither the manufacturer nor the receiver could accept the damage. Why was that damage occurring? It was occurring because regulations have been ignored by the Department of Transport, shunting practices have changed on the railroad at the various new humpyards which are there, and the speed with which cars connect is excessive; so damage occurs. Therefore they were forced, whether they wished or not, to go to the road for transportation. This is rather ridiculous, especially when one is sitting in a railroad centre. It increased the cost of transportation, and it is one of the reasons the veneer mill, which was built at considerable expense to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is very apt to close its doors on a permanent basis. That is how important transportation can be. What factor does it play? Are we in fact given the access to Canadian markets which confederation promised in 1867? The answer is: no, we are not.
Let me take a look at the potato industry. Some hon. members of the House are extremely familiar with the impact of transportation costs on that industry. It hits them in two ways. It hits them on the incoming costs of the requirements of the industry, whether it be fertilizer, machinery or repairs, and the service from that transportation industry is downgraded from what it was 40 years ago. The cost of the production of potatoes has very seriously increased. For instance, the massive increase in fertilizer freight rates had a major impact upon the cost of production.
Historically the soil of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island produced potatoes at a cost which made them competitive even in distant markets. They were competitive with the production of potatoes in central Canada. They were no more than competitive, but they were in the business. The increment in freight costs have been such that they have been removed, to an important degree, from being in a competitive position, in spite of land costs, skills, etc. This is not in conformity with the intention of confederation. Why can we not take a look at that?
March 17, 1981

I submit that the lumber, fishing and agricultural industries have been hurt seriously. If one picks up the paper, one sees where fresh fish marketing is impaired, where CN and CP Express are withdrawing and people are now removed 30, 40 or 50 miles from initial points of delivery of express and LCL freight terminals. This is an inconvenience; this is not the intention of the rail system. If one happens to have drag with a trucking company, one might get a package delivered quickly. But if one does not, and if one required a part in order to repair a piece of machinery in the county of Charlotte or the county of Carleton today, one would get into one's car or half-ton truck and go to Montreal to get it. One does not wait for today's transportation system to make the delivery. This is inconvenience which is certainly not in the best interests of Atlantic Canada or Canada as a whole.
I should like to turn to another item respecting ports. This affects the minister and his bailiwick of Quebec. Today the Government of Canada is dealing with a trade pact in the Pacific rim. It is negotiating a certain agreement that if a ship arrives at a Canadian port as the first port of call, then there will be a certain duty applied to the product being imported into Canada. But, if that ship makes a foreign port of call prior to its port of call in Canada, a higher rate of duty will apply. The Government of Canada is now negotiating to give away the first port of call priority. If this happens, the imports from Australia and New Zealand will probably take place on the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast of the United States. Those imports will not be handled by our port crews on the east and west coasts of Canada, and, in turn, the exports will probably come down to that ship on one truck with the imports going back on the same truck to their destination in Canada. This represents an intrusion into the market opportunities of Canadian agriculturalists. We are talking of letting food in to take automobile parts out. I am told that is what the deal is all about. Not only will the farmer be hit with lower cost imports, they will be brought in through an American port, rather than Montreal, Saint John, Halifax or Vancouver. This is a very serious threat, not only to the farmer because of the threatened reduction in tariff on imported food, but to the port worker and people all over the country.
It is thoroughly and completely impossible to discuss all the items which need to be discussed with respect to this subject matter as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. I suggest to the minister we should have a House committee which would have an opportunity to give some serious consideration to the representations of Atlantic Canadian people on behalf of the best interests of Atlantic Canada, its region and the nation of which it is proud. It cannot be done in any other way. How can any group of people properly discuss lumber, potatoes, fish, express, highway, trucking, sea and ports transportation in one day in the House of Commons?
There are people who are studying the problem at the moment. They are prepared to make presentations to the minister. In fact, they are coming to see the minister responsible for DREE, because there are threats to federal investment and to jobs in Atlantic Canada. There is a waste of
Transportation
federal money because of transportation policies which do not add to the developmental opportunities and leadership the government could offer to Atlantic Canada. We need that study in the worst way. I do not know for how long the committee could sit, but it should have the element of time and breadth of interest which would allow it to see what can be done. Can we develop the port, the drydocks, the harbour and shipping in Saint John? What about Halifax harbour, Bel-ledune and Chatham? All these items are of major significance to eastern Canada. They cannot be discussed here, nor can the proper input be made.
I should like to refer to one personal example. Shortly after World War II, I built a little plant. I could not get the necessary machinery in New Brunswick, so I was advised to get it in Montreal or in the west. The reason was that there would be no parts for my machines in New Brunswick; they would have to come from Montreal or perhaps from the west. Up until 1960 to 1965, if a breakdown in the plant occurred, I could phone the supplier of that machinery in order to have that part delivered by rail. If I called as late as five o'clock in the afternoon it would be in my office at one o'clock the next afternoon. But if I owned that plant today and if a machinery breakdown occurred, my only hope of receiving the part in those hours would be to send my own vehicle or a specially-hired vehicle to St. Hyacinthe, Montreal or wherever the point may be, in order to get my plant back into business. I cannot, nor can anyone in New Brunswick, depend upon CP, CN, highway or any other transportation system to deliver as they used to deliver 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
This is what the debate is all about-excessive rates, discrimination against our ports, and failure to keep the agreement of confederation that the markets of Canada should be available at competitive prices to the products of Atlantic Canada. This is what the debate is all about. This is where the government has failed, and it is where maritime members have failed their regions. They will not support Atlantic Canada in an attack on the government to get the things they proclaim they want. We will help them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, of course, at any time to participate in a debate in this House. I do so with a bit of sadness, particularly in view of the closing remarks of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), wherein he suggested a committee be set up to study certain aspects of transportation in Atlantic Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Use the Standing Committee on Transport!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 was just about to say that we have a standing committee of this House which, in my view, is ideally suited to study just that sort of matter. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that is probably what we should have been doing today instead of being involved in this debate, since we had a full day of meetings scheduled when suddenly

March 17, 1981
Transportation
there was to be a debate on transportation in the House. Thus, we are not in committee doing a detailed study of transportation.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The committee system of the House of Commons in its present session on estimates does not fit. I plead with the hon. member to let us have a session of the committee with time, not five minute sessions which will not do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That, of course, is not a point of order, but a point of debate.


Fred Alward McCain: I agree.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte is anxious to continue this debate. I am also glad he is making a suggestion to make the committees of this House more effective. I am all for that. I think the committee is probably capable of accomplishing more, in terms of detailed work and detailed studies on transportation, fisheries, justice and whatever department you wish to take, than we are capable of doing as a whole House. We just do not have the time in the House to go into detail, nor can we call witnesses before the House as we can before the committee. 1 am all for making the committees effective. I hope we will see the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte from time to time in the transport committee to give us the benefit of his experience there.
1 also want to comment on a couple of other points suggested by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. I like his remark that we should all work together to develop certain items in Atlantic Canada. At first I thought he was serious but then he went on and I realized again it was political. He talked about the port of Saint John and the port of Halifax and how they are being discriminated against by the department and the government in relation to the port of Montreal. I think it is important to set the record straight. I think that what he was talking about, although I am not sure, was the announcement by the minister not too long ago that the federal government has taken a major step toward ensuring the growth of the port of Montreal by approving, in principle, the forgiveness of $133 million in principal and $98 million in interest arrears, being a total of $231 million.
What he failed to tell the House was that this was only part of a $475 million Canada-wide forgiveness of repayment of loans and interest in arrears for the National Harbours Board. At the time of his announcement the minister added that a consultant was being selected to prepare a master plan study for the port of Montreal to be decided upon soon by Treasury Board.
The hon. member also failed to mention that in that same announcement there was announced the forgiveness of $65 million for the port of Halifax, $45 million for the port of Saint John and $2.5 million for the port of Belledune. The ports of Vancouver and Montreal are capable of financing new capital projects from their own returned earnings, which makes them quite different from the remaining ports in the
National Harbours Board system, for instance, Prince Rupert, Churchill, Quebec, Trois Rivieres, Port Colborne and especially the port of St. John's. Halifax, Saint John and Belledune are able to go to the federal government for financing of special projects. In very recent times, for instance, the port of Halifax received about $29 million for the new Fairview Cove terminal. The port of Saint John will receive about $23 million in federal financing for the new potash terminal. One can see that it makes a difference when you present all the facts and not just selective ones.
I would also tell the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte that I am prepared to work with him toward the development of ports in New Brunswick, or for any project in New Brunswick, whenever I hear that he is willing to work with us on this side of the House for the development of the other half of New Brunswick, that half of New Brunswick to which the government of New Brunswick does not attach much priority. For instance, will the hon. member support us in persuading the government of New Brunswick to spend the provincial budget fairly? I am surprised he had the nerve to comment on route 11 and to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), to look at the original agreement for the construction of Route 11. That is the federal-provincial agreement and the present day agreement where he said we would find the cost shared by the federal goverment much less than that in the original agreement.
Let me tell you a little bit about that original agreement, Mr. Speaker. It was a very generous one, indeed, since the federal government was paying 100 per cent of the construction cost of Route 11 in the original statements. That was not the only matter, it was paying an additional 10 per cent of construction costs for engineering and the right-of-way purchase.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do not tell me nonsense.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if Nova Scotia ever received a deal like that one, but New Brunswick did.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, we did not.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In fact, the government of New Brunswick was so little interested in getting that highway constructed it could not even do the engineering and design work fast enough to spend the money the federal government had designated. The federal government in the subsequent agreement, naturally, cut the cost-sharing because there was not any sharing before. It was just a give-away to the province. I did not object to that until the province started to play pretty blatant patronage with federal funds. Even defeated provincial Tory candidates could decide who was to do the work on those stretches of highway which were being built, despite the fact that the agreement stated hiring had to be done through manpower centres. The manpower centres were being ignored totally. In fact, in at least one case I know the manager of a manpower centre was threatened if he dared to interfere. The subsequent agreement called for an 80-20
March 17, 1981

split in the financing with the federal government still providing 80 per cent of the costs. I thought this was still a pretty generous gift from the Government of Canada to the government of New Brunswick. Of course this was done by the federal government since it recognized that transportation is a tool of economic development, despite what the motion before us today says. That was the only reason the federal government became involved with that highway. The latter agreements were reduced to a 75-25 split. The lion's share again coming from the federal government. I repeat, this was for a totally provincial responsibility.
How did the province of New Brunswick show its gratitude for receiving these funds? It diverted almost all provincial transportation funds away from that part of New Brunswick into other parts of the province. The minister of transportation for New Brunswick had the unmitigated nerve to tell a delegation from my riding-in fact he has told several delegations but I will only speak of one since I was a member of it-that if we wanted roads in our part of New Brunswick we had better get federal funding for it. He said he had no funds to make available.


Walter David Baker: Who said that?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Bishop said that, in my presence. That is the way the federal government was repaid for its efforts to construct reasonable highways which it saw as a tool of economic development for the northeast region of New Brunswick.
I am prepared to work with the hon. member for Carleton-Chariotte for the development of New Brunswick when I see that he is committed to urge the Government, of which he was once a supporter, to treat all parts of the province fairly with provincial funds.
Surely if there is any validity to equalization in this country, if we are committed to that goal, and if the Government of Canada will give the government of New Brunswick large sums of money every year to equalize services and rates of taxation to a reasonable level in this country, then the wealthier parts of New Brunswick have some obligation to the poorer parts just as surely as the government of New Brunswick has an obligation to every part of that province, not only to those parts of the province from which it has elected members. I will fight for federal funds for any project in New Brunswick when I am convinced that the government of New Brunswick will apply those funds fairly.
Indeed, just last Friday morning I participated in the signing of an agreement for $37.5 million, which was a joint federal-provincial agreement for forestry development in New Brunswick.


Walter David Baker: What did you do at the
ceremony?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I did enough. Thirty million dollars of that $37 million came from the
Transportation
federal government. That was a fairly generous agreement, but it does not come under the topic of transport, so 1 will not dwell on it.
There are a couple of other points in this motion I want to deal with, but I want to say that the first part which condemns the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for abandoning the use of transportation as the tool of national and regional economic development is patently not correct.
The Department of Transport is a big department and a rather cumbersome monster, as I am sure the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would admit. However, I am aware of various instances when the Department of Transport did respond with some alacrity and sympathy in situations that were critical. I have seen it happen under this minister and under the hon. member for Vegreville. In one case in my riding which dealt with the wharf at Chatham, the minister did act very quickly and I now thank him for this publicly. I do not believe the Department of Transport or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) always deserve all of the criticism they receive.


Walter David Baker: MacEachen should get a bit, too!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They seem to be everyone's whipping boy.
Let me move on to some of the other areas I want to touch on today. We have been asked to bring in additional legislation in this motion. I am very much in favour of that, particularly as it would relate to a maritime code, the new ports policy, and other aspects of marine transport such as coastal shipping. I would like to see that legislation before the House. I know some of it is ready and that other parts are in the preparation stage. But as long as we have a filibuster in this House on the resolution which is now before it, we will not be able to deal with those other pieces of legislation. Therefore I would urge my colleagues, particularly the official opposition, to abandon its filibuster in the House, to abandon this delay of legislation. Let us get on with the job of dealing with the necessary pieces of legislation from Transport, from Justice, from Finance, from Health and Welfare, from Energy, Mines and Resources, from most other departments, as well as from Environment, which is another very important department. We have a very drastic need, in this country, for some of those pieces of legislation, but they are all being delayed because of a filibuster.
We heard from the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) a little earlier who described the awful situation in P.E.l regarding ferry service and transportation in that province. I was glad my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche pointed out that the ferry service to P.E.l is actually very good, having improved very markedly in the last few years. My good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) spoke of the profit CN Marine trade is making. Last year it had a book profit of some $8 million. However, that profit was as a result of revenue amounting to $25,137,000 in subsidy alone granted to the ferry service to Prince Edward Island. Altogether, in 1980, ferry services received

March 17, 1981
Transportation
$136,431,000 from the federal treasury. Without that, there would have been a rather huge deficit. With all of the doom and gloom we have heard here today, the federal government is doing quite a lot for the united provinces.
From time to time I complain to the department and to the minister, but sometimes when a government or a minister is doing something good we should say so. If we are always going to cry "wolf', we may turn into wolves.
As I said, the ferry service alone received over $12 million in federal subsidy in 1980. That is about $235 for every man, woman and child on Prince Edward Island. I am not suggesting it is only the residents of Prince Edward Island who use that ferry service; it is not. There are other residents of Canada and other countries who use it. It is certainly the road link to the nation and plays a very important part. It must be maintained and improved whenever there are opportunities to improve it. It is a good service and we should continue to improve it, not just knock it.
I would now like to discuss regional air carrier services. There is a bit of fetish in this country which leads one to believe that unless one is flying by jet, one really is not flying. As I know the minister is interested in regional air carrier service, I would urge him to seek a rationalization of the regional air carrier policy in this country, particularly as it applies to Atlantic Canada.


Walter David Baker: You can't fly on one wing.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We have a good carrier in Atlantic Canada, Eastern Provincial Airways. Of course it has a problem with cash flow, and of not having sufficient equipment. The difficulty is we do not have good rationalization of routes. We have routes such as the one to northeastern New Brunswick, which might be termed a dead end route, as it flies Montreal-Charlo-Chatham-Montreal; and if you want to fly to Halifax from Charlo or Chatham you must first fly to Montreal. That is not very satisfactory service. I would urge upon the government and the minister to get after the Canadian Transport Commission to come up with a rational plan for regional air carrier service.
We need intercity service, but we do not need 737s or DC-9s flying from Moncton to Halifax, from Halifax to Charlottetown, or from Charlo to Fredericton or to Saint John. We need smaller aircraft with more frequent flights so that the air service will, in fact, be a service to the people of the Atlantic provinces making interprovincial communication by air possible and readily available to the people of Atlantic Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to speak tonight of all nights. I do not want to trespass too far on the patron saint whose name I bear


Mr. Knowles:: I thought you were St. Patrick himself!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 am very saintly anyway, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminds me. I do
not want to get into the total philosophy of the saint from the emerald isle tonight, however.
I listened with interest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I believe he is a very humble man, and certainly in terms of transportation policy he has much to be humble about. He is also a decent, philosophical person.
I had intended to speak later tonight, Mr. Speaker; 1 thought I might be the garbageman who would clean up, if I were called upon. What disturbed me most about the summary the Minister of Transport gave of the motion presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), was the lack of any zest, energy, enthusiasm, or challenge about something that is of fundamental importance to those of us who are on the periphery, especially those of us from the Atlantic region, from the northern part of the country or from the west.
The motion quite property zeroed in on the problems of Atlantic Canada. I give some credit to the minister and the government, because, after all, no one government has all the answers. As one federal minister of transport said not too long ago, transportation is in a mess. The very structure of our country has been based on transportation. As the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said, perhaps we are overdealing with constitutionalitis to the point that in many areas of endeavour there is a form of governmental constipation because of that constitutionalitis and we are not directing our attention to the many factors and areas in this country which need attention. The government is aware of that; it sets the agenda. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was government House leader not too long ago and he knows from his experience that the government lays its agenda on the table of this House and the opposition responds to it. If there is a constitutional resolution before the House and the government insists that debate carry on day after day, then naturally it will.
There are other items of importance in the country, however. That is why we in the opposition have taken the opportunity today in this limited type of debate, which fortunately ends in a vote tonight, to focus attention on something that is of fundamental importance. Without getting into the Latin, the reason this is a country from sea to sea is that the CPR formed the western link that made us an entity from sea to sea.
If this matter were not so serious I might use a stronger word than ironic, and say it is rather paradoxical that as we contemplate our navels to determine what we are and where we are going as a nation in terms of the Constitution, the factors that helped make this country great, such as transportation, go for naught. They get shifted aside.
That is what disappointed me when I listened as objectively as I could to the Minister of Transport this afternoon. Point by point he answered the matters raised in the resolution presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I will not make a rebuttal to his reply because that is not my point at the moment. My point is that I cannot think of any more exhilarating challenge in government than to be minister of
March 17, 1981

transport in the country at this time. Instead of using statistics to show that so many dollars were spent here and some work was done on a seaport there, I had expected something more like a vision. I know the Deputy Prime Minister has heard about visions before, from the late right hon. member for Prince Albert so he may be a little gun-shy of visions. But perhaps we do not talk enough about visions in this House and maybe the night of St. Patrick is not a bad time to talk about them. I do not mean the visions that cause all the problems in Ireland, but rather, visions for this country.
We need a larger vision than was evident in the minister's remarks today. His recital was pedantic, mechanical and, for him, unemotional. Any minister worth his salt, and this minister used to have salt, would get very emotional about this subject.
The minister was right in some of the things he said about Air Canada. We do have different planes now. I can remember, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister can, when we used to take the Viscount from the maritimes to Ottawa. The Deputy Prime Minister will remember that to get off the island of Cape Breton, before the causeway was built it was almost necessary to row a boat across the strait to the mainland. Then it took eight or ten hours to fly from Halifax to Ottawa. Now we have the benefits of modern technology and jet planes. Of course, the Minister of Transport does not take credit for all of this. We still cannot fly to New York direct from Ottawa. I am really speaking now about Atlantic area transportation and certainly we can fly much more easily today from Ottawa to Halifax than in the old days. That is to the credit of everyone concerned. But all the problems of this new advancing age have not been solved. The government does not like to admit that there is something called oil and gas. That is dirty stuff developed by these penurious selfish companies which are bleeding Canadian taxpayers to death.
I was very interested this afternoon when the minister rationalized about the icebreaking service and told us to worry about icebreaking on the St. Lawrence and the Gulf because all his experts say the cost of $17 million breaks down to $1.60 per ton and, really, that is not so much. I think the minister should ask his colleagues in cabinet, especially the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), to look into this matter a little further. In that most slanted seven-volume report, published after an eight or ten-year study of the oil and gas industry, there is mention of extra charges over a period of ten-years amounting to $12 billion. Yet apparently the government cannot lay charges against the industry. I am informed by people who know the industry better than I that on the basis of the 35 gallon barrel, taking a ten-year period, the overcharging could be broken down to something like one-third of a cent per gallon.
When the minister tries to rationalize the cost of icebreaking services in the Gulf, I should like him to remember what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said about the oil companies.
In his own inimitable way the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) justified what the hon.
Transportation
member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) said, that in terms of Atlantic Canada-and hon. members from Atlantic Canada including yourself Mr. Speaker, will appreciate this- unless we become more strongly Atlantic Canadians rather than partisan politicians, some of the basic problems which have existed almost since confederation will not be resolved. The Minister of Transport gave us a recital of statistics this afternoon. To give him his due, certain things have improved but I think he must accept the challenges that lie on the threshold and he must talk about them.
I am not happy to listen to the statistics of the past when 1 know that in the future Dome Petroleum will go offshore to buy the new icebreaking barges to go into the north, and those jobs and that industry will go to Korea or Japan. As an Atlantic Canadian, regardless of how you rationalize it, we thought part of our future was container ports. Almost overnight it is unilaterally being shifted in large measure from Halifax to Montreal. 1 do not have anything against Montreal, but when the history of this time is written, and this comes very close to the background and heritage of the Deputy Prime Minister, it will be said that Atlantic Canadians were not small Canadians when the seaway was to be built. We knew it was in the best interests of the country even though there would be some problems.
Once the decision was made by the government, and it happened to have the same label of government that is now in power, problems started with Sydney Steel. The iron ore came from Sept lies, Ungava and the heartland, and there was not a refitting of the steel mill in Sydney. Some of my predecessors on this side said that was the demarcation of the decline of Sydney Steel. In like fashion we on this side are concerned when we see the Dart Containerline traffic that was supposed to be the base of the new Halifax port activity, unilaterally shifted to Montreal with a tangled corporate web involving Crown corporations and/or federal help in order to keep the St. Lawrence seaway open. That does not make us happy.
When we look to the future there is something else we talk about in this House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance was supposed to help with the financing, but so far there has been no commitment whatsoever in terms of the future of Atlantic Canada. I refer to the pipeline extension east of Quebec City. This will come back to haunt the Minister of Finance. It will come back to haunt the Minister of Finance that Atlantic Canadians did not have the opportunity to make a bid on the LNG project between Gros Cacouna and the Strait of Canso, in the backyard of the Minister of Finance. It does not give us much hope for the future when the Minister of Finance is not prepared to exercise the weight of his office to get the National Energy Board to move on the whole operation. The Minister of Finance can smile, but I suggest it will be the smile of the proverbial cat that gave you parliamentary indigestion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The minister is smiling because you are attacking him rather than the Minister of Transport.

March 17, 1981
Transportation


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I find it much easier to attack the Minister of Finance. Perhaps it is because we are compatriots from the old sod. Why I bring my colleague in indirectly, a man I get along with very well outside the House-obviously we have to object in the House from time to time-is because we are talking about Atlantic area problems.
We are not talking about transportation of the old days, the horse and buggy, the steam engine and the days of sail. Those days have gone out the window. We are talking about the new world and the new challenges which should excite the Minister of Transport, coming back to him; the new challenges that should give us real hope in Atlantic Canada. Quite frankly, we in that "have not" area are on the threshold of a real "have" situation if governments of all political labels, federal and provincial, will move in the right direction.
I repeat, the Dart situation came about overnight. We did not have a decision on the pipeline extension other than what was in the budget. It is supposed to be a committee of government. The government is not ensuring that the National Energy Board move on the whole hearing. To be fair, the federal government is not the only one at fault on the pipeline extension. I do not mind saying in this House I am not happy with the Premier of New Brunswick and the caveats he files on the extension of the pipeline. Let us not worry about the problems of nuclear energy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friend from Northumberland-Miramichi has croaked. I will be candid and admit that all the blame is not in one corner. If we in Atlantic Canada do not speak with a common voice about our common problems, we will be doing a disservice to those we represent, those who sent us here to represent them, regardless of party affiliation.
In the years I have been in this House it has bothered me that we do not have an all-party Atlantic caucus to deal with common problems. We cannot always agree. I realize the problems of government. In the brief time we were in government I did not agree with everything that was done. However, I think it is political negligence that we from Atlantic Canada do not meet once a year to discuss our common problems.
As a result of the fine work of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East we on this side have an Atlantic caucus which meets once a week. I do not know whether the same is true on the government side. We know they travelled around Atlantic Canada once about five years ago. As far as I am aware, that is the only time the government Atlantic caucus has ever met in Atlantic Canada to talk about the problems there.


An hon. Member:: How about the west?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Well, they are twinning the west. Regardless of whether I sit on this side or the side of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, I am deeply concerned, when gas is in surplus and offshore oil is costing more every day, that we are not moving as a geographic entity, regardless of political
stripe, to make sure the pipeline is extended. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that in the 1979 campaign, although he did not say much about it in 1980, the pipeline should extend from coast to coast the same as the great transportation link which joined us together after 1867. That is what we are talking about.
Every member from Atlantic Canada should be disturbed about the bureaucratic mishmash and innate foot dragging there is in government, and I say "government" in the apolitical sense. Members are elected to stick pins in the backsides of bureaucrats, to get them off dead centre, off their seats. We try to get them to hold hearings, and not just in Ottawa. The National Energy Board now travels.
I do not accept the report of the National Energy Board. Members of Atlantic Canada should not accept the NEB report which tries to justify why it did not approve the extension of the pipeline. They said it was because of environmental studies and the fact that we might find gas off the Atlantic shore. Should those two reasons justify not going ahead with a link from coast to coast? If we do discover oil offshore, it will help central Canada. Some people might say I am attacking the National Energy Board. I will attack it when its report is before the proper committee. How can it say environmental studies are necessary in the area from Quebec to Halifax when there were no studies between Montreal and Quebec, yet it approved that extension? And I do not accept that double dealing and I must say that I did not appreciate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In conclusion I am glad to have had the few moments, too few, to bring some of these problems forward. I hope Atlantic Canadians will talk with one voice on common problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I certainly felt there could have been a few more minutes to wrap it all up, but it has been a very interesting evening so far, and I guess some of the very interesting comments were made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I particularly noted his comment on patronage, and from his remarks tonight I was very optimistic that recognition might be the first step to a cure.
There were comments tonight on the committee system as an appropriate method of dealing with transportation issues. I think a great many people in this House are finding that the committee system is not an effective way to deal with some of the problems that face this nation, particularly with the spending of billions of dollars in departmental estimates, or even in dealing with programs-some certainly have more success than others. I think by and large, however, with some of the reforms of the committee system suggested we may see a better transportation system in the country. I think there is an even greater potential for reform. In watching passage of this
March 17, 1981

particular motion through the House tonight, I think the whole question of how we approach opposition days may be worth looking at.
The motion before us starts out by condemning the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and then itemizes some very serious concerns affecting everyone in this House. I have spoken to government members, members of the official opposition and our own party who are concerned about many of the items. Unfortunately these motions are always condemned to defeat in advance. There are positive statements in this motion, but they are couched in such a way it can never succeed. That is unfortunate because I think some of the government members recognize many of the problems, and support some of the suggested solutions.
Although I suppose we are going to support this motion, I am reluctant to join in condemning the Minister of Transport.
1 may have felt a little differently early in my term, but I have found he is a person who is at least open and willing to discuss problems, in some cases more so than other members of the government. I certainly appreciate some of the things he has done there.
The point I am making is we had a very interesting debate on El Salvador and Central America Monday last, and 1 think many members of the official opposition, although they had difficulty supporting the motion the way it was drafted, supported the concept. I guess I am saying the same thing tonight.
I wish the motion was couched in such a way that a positive outcome was possible with regard to the common problems we recognize.
With those comments I should like to move on to one aspect of transportation that concerns me, an aspect I think it is of vital concern to all Canadians.
I have spoken on this many times in the House and I know many others are vitally concerned with it. I refer to the whole area of marine transportation. Many people in this House recognize that the Department of Transport is a monster, containing as it does the air, marine and surface administrations. Basically it is so vital and so large there is a feeling that the department should be divided. On a number of occasions I have placed a number of questions and suggestions on the order paper that we appoint a minister of marine transportation. The other day in response to a question the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he would give that concept consideration. I would like to make some arguments this evening as to why that should be done and done very quickly.
The issue of a Canadian merchant fleet has been debated many times in this House. Many members of the government, the loyal opposition, and the New Democratic Party, have on many occasions indicated support for this. If we look back we will see that Canada is about the tenth largest trading nation in the world. The goods we exported and imported in 1979 amounted to about $38 billion, of which 10 per cent, roughly $4 billion, can be related to the freight bill. In coming years we will be looking at increasing wheat shipments, but as the world converts from more expensive petroleum fuels to coal, we are going to see a massive development of marine transportation to
Transportation
haul that coal to those nations short of it from those that have it in abundance. Ports will have to be developed and, in short, billions and billions of dollars will have to be spent on marine transportation development.
After the world coal report was produced someone made the statement that there were not enough shipyards in the world to build quickly enough the vessels required to carry the volume of coal when we really begin to make that conversion by the end of the century. A Canadian merchant fleet is going to be a very important aspect of our marine transportation system. It is going to provide jobs for Canadians through crewing these vessels, jobs in building them and in allied industries, and it is going to place in Canada a technology that will, if we take the opportunity, make us world traders in ships and marine facilities. Basically what we have to do is look seriously at bringing a Canadian merchant fleet onstream very soon.
It is interesting to note the arguments, and there have been ten to 20 years of studies, as to why we do not have a merchant fleet. The government's policy for years has been that there is a large pool of surplus shipping in the world; it provides a cheap source of transport for Canadian goods on these flags of convenience ships using cheap labour, with very low safety standards and a variety of other cost-cutting methods, and that it has been a boon to Canada in supplying cheap transportation. However, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a hook in that and a very dangerous one. Shipyards in Canada are no longer capable, I would suggest, of building the kinds of vessels that would put Canada out front in carrying her own resources around the world, or at least a share of those resources. The capability is not there and what we have done by this very pennywise and pound foolish policy is place ourselves in very great jeopardy for the next few decades; maybe forever. I suggest, therefore, it is unfortunate that the resolution tonight was not couched in such a way as to make a positive statement about the development of a Canadian merchant fleet.
Another aspect of this suggestion about the appointment of a minister for marine transportation, given the task of developing a marine force for Canada and co-ordinating the efforts of government and industry to bring about this marine strategy in a way that would provide maximum benefits for Canada, is the business of offshore and Arctic development. The oil companies are now coming before the national resources and public works committee talking about their plans in the Canada lands area of Hibernia, off Sable Island, the Labrador shelf, the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic islands, and they are using some interesting figures. Dome talks about spending $40 billion on platforms for exploration, production and transportation of supplies in and the resource out. Mobil Oil was talking the other day about their activities off the east coast and it presented some rough and dirty figures. It was talking about $5 billion for marine platforms. Mobil is working with semisubmersible rigs and developing platforms to work on the sea bottom. When Mobil get into production they plan to spend roughly $5 billion over the next decade.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
With respect to the offshore role of Gulf Resources of Canada, Gulf officials spoke the other day about approximately $5 billion for marine platforms. Gulf had not yet decided on technology; whether it would dredge up islands and plant their production facilities on those islands or go with more conventional marine platforms. However, they spoke about a quick $5 billion figure.
Officials of PanArctic Resources were here today. They are working in a number of areas, some of them on land. They are beginning to work offshore in very deep waters. One particular oil strike was at 1,100 feet. With respect to the projects in which PanArctic is involved with other companies, they are talking about $40 billion to $50 billion. This is projected between now and the 1990s. Some things are on the drawing board; some things are a reality. Dome Petroleum is considering delivering gas to Japan by 1986. It is considering delivering gas out of the Arctic pilot project by 1985. That is just a very short few years away.
The oil companies to which I have referred were asked what impediments they see to Canadians participating in building platforms for exploration, for production and for transportation. Every one of them indicated that there is a serious problem. First, the resource industry, government and the manufacturing industry which will be involved in providing maximization of benefits for Canadians, are not talking on a formal, regular basis to see that those works come to Canadian shipyards and allied industries. That is the first problem.
There seems to be a problem within the government itself. Various government departments seem to be developing a fragmented approach or are actually working at times at cross purposes. When there is an order of roughly $60 billion to $100 billion, we as Canadians cannot afford that kind of impediment.
The other impediment is that Canadian shipyards are not in a position to deliver. Let us go back for a moment to the case of Mobil Oil. Mobil went offshore for a drilling rig. It went to Canadian shipyards and said, "Can you build it?" Those shipyards said, "Sorry, we cannot; we are not set up to do it". A specific delivery date was specified, and Canadian shipyards could not do it. Work valued at $300 million went offshore.
Dome Petroleum entered into an agreement just a week and a half or two weeks ago. Dome Petroleum wants to spend $200 million on a barge. The barge is to be a floating drydock to work in the Arctic. Dome went to every Canadian shipyard and asked if this barge it wanted, made from 7,500 tons of steel, could be built in Canada. That would have been a very large project. Roughly 150 to 200 jobs would have been involved. Every Canadian shipyard was asked if there could be a delivery by June 1 because the Arctic window opens for only a short period of time. It is only open from roughly July 15 to September 15. If the barge does not go in then, it must wait a year. Some projects tie up $1 million a day for a year, and that money cannot be wasted. The Canadian shipyards invited to participate were asked for a June 1 delivery date. None of them could meet that date. Dome went offshore and found
that no foreign supplier could do it, so the date was moved to September 1. Canadian shipbuilders still could not meet the date, but one offshore shipyard could. That barge is now being built in Japan.
Dome had the same problem with supply vessels for the Beaufort Sea. They are built in Louisiana. Apparently they have a very special design. There now is a need to acquire an icebreaking tug; a very large and powerful machine. This is on the drawing board. Strengthened hulls and huge motors are required, but delivering the motors at the time the hulls are built will require a two-year delay. This equipment is needed in the Arctic when the window is open. If Canadians cannot build it, that tug will be built offshore.
The moral of the story is that resource companies are not talking seriously enough with the shipbuilding companies. Government is not giving adequate or co-ordinated attention to the development of Canadian shipyards. Government is not facilitating developments in the Arctic.
Perhaps a way out of this particular dilemma would be to appoint a minister of marine transportation and to give such minister the task of developing a marine industrial strategy which would have the resources to co-ordinate and make sure that Canadians cash in as much as possible on that $60 billion to $100 billion Arctic development.
Who knows what merchant fleet development there might be when we start moving large quantities of coal out of this country? But without the necessary co-ordination many of these developments will go offshore. We will be supplying only the nuts and bolts for these massive platforms being built offshore.
There are other aspects of this which seem somewhat strange to someone standing outside and watching. It must certainly seem strange to some government members that the government uses a large number of marine platforms. The government spends a tremendous amount of money. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is spending roughly $90 million on a new fishing vessel acquisition program. The RCMP has a fleet of vessels it uses in the delivery of law enforcement services at sea. The Department of Transport provides search and rescue services through the coastguard as well as icebreaking services and a host of other things. That department has a very large fleet. The Department of National Defence is developing a new frigate program as well as a destroyer life extension program.
From the information we have it appears to someone from the outside that there is a great deal of fragmentation in the way we are obtaining marine platforms. Each department has its own vessels. Each is building its own empire. This has created a great deal of fragmentation.
It strikes me that if the government is building all those vessels, whether they be new frigates for the armed forces, whether they be under a destroyer life extension program, whether they be fisheries vessels or RCMP vessels or whether money is spent on coastguard repair work or new construction, it should all be co-ordinated, not by way of awarding contracts
March 17, 1981

to the lowest bidders, but through the development and enhancement of a Canadian marine industrial strategy.
Bill C-48 really is not strong enough to demand Canadian content, but subsidization and tax programs should all be brought together under a minister of marine transportation in order to create a marine industrial strategy for Canadians. This would be a tremendous project, and there is tremendous potential. That makes a great deal of sense to me and to many with whom I have spoken. We should not fail to do this. Mobil has already done it, Dome has already done it and every shipping company listed here and every carrier has done it.
I would like to run through some figures. They are not particularly important, but in 1976 roughly 100,000 tonnes of Canadian shipping were built offshore. In 1977, 164,000 tonnes were built offshore. In 1978, 67,000 tonnes were built offshore. In short, a tremendous amount of our shipping capability is being lost to other countries. Many of these ships are registered in other countries, and repaired in other countries.
I have dealt with our opportunities in the Arctic. I have dealt with the problems faced by companies which want to build their vessels in Canada. They cannot get Canadian shipyards to handle the work, so other countries are providing their ships. In the Arctic the Offshore Supply Association- which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a German company, Preussag of Bremen-intends to register six of its 92 vessels in Canada so that they can work in the Arctic. I submit that those should not be supplied from West Germany, with returns going back to West Germany. Those vessels should be produced by Canadians in Canadian shipyards supplied by many other Canadian allied industries. This would provide an additional benefit.
I would like to complete my contribution to this debate tonight. I strongly suggest to the Minister of Transport and members of the government who are vitally concerned about this, whether they be from Atlantic Canada, from Quebec, from Sorel, from Levis or from Montreal, that we need a minister of marine transportation. We need a marine industrial strategy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by saying how delighted I am to participate in this debate on a motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party which calls on this House to condemn the failure of the government to deal adequately with national transportation problems. In our motion, we condemn my good friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in particular, for:
1.	abandoning the use of transportation as a tool of national and regional
economic development;
2.	allowing Canadian National Railways to totally disregard legitimate maritime business needs and close CN Express offices without adequate financial
justification-
Transportation
7. failing to bring before the House acceptable legislation dealing with a new national transportation act, ports policy, the maritime code, or coastal shipping;
There a. e other grievances.
My colleagues have contributed usefully to this debate on a variety of subjects. I am particularly glad my colleague from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), has been able to participate and to deal with a number of issues of special import to my province and to the region in general.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I intend to focus almost exclusively on rail transportation, including all the various operations of Canadian National. I do so, not because I think air transport, shipping or highways are not important-in fact they are-but I think by concentrating on rail transportation I will be able to illustrate more clearly than in any other fashion two broad points. The first is that the government is almost totally insensitive to the problems and concerns of the Atlantic provinces, and the second is that the government is especially unaware of the importance of transportation to the economy of the region and to the quality of life there.
It must be remembered that the Atlantic provinces were not always poor, disadvantaged and destitute. At the time of confederation we were a fairly prosperous region. We were approaching a degree of self-sufficiency with strong trade ties, for example, with the northeastern tier states of our southern neighbours. In the 1860s, our region had a well-developed maritime shipping industry. Ours ranked fourth among the great merchant marines of the world, and this sort of enterprise spawned all kinds of industries beyond those particular ones, including a significant financial system which included about a dozen banks, two of which were the most substantial and stable in all of North America, not to mention insurance and marine companies.
Soon after confederation the situation turned dramatically for the worse. I would be the last member of the House to argue that confederation has not been good for the Atlantic provinces or for my province in particular. That is not the point of my message. I am saying, however, that despite many social and economic benefits from confederation, the policies of successive federal governments, particularly Liberal governments, consciously or subconsciously have favoured other regions of Canada at the expense of our own, especially central Canada. I might mention, for instance, the fact that high tariffs have consistently favoured the industrial heartland of the country, southern Quebec and Ontario, a policy which, whatever its merits in terms of developing the national economy as an independent force, involved the Atlantic region paying a very high price indeed. The national policy, as it was called, was begun in the early part of our history and was followed to the present. It is not an isolated example.
Nowhere is such a bias in favour of the central part of the country more true than in transportation. 1 think in that regard a historical perspective is vital to an understanding of the importance of transportation to the region and of the failure of national transportation policies to serve the region.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
1 want to skim over the history very briefly. But in doing so I stress, in particular, that Prince Edward Island entered confederation because of the firm commitment made by Canada-as it then was-to complete the P.E.I. railroad and to maintain it forever and a day. I have in front of me the Terms of Union between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada. They stress:
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the Island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the Island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
That was a firm commitment by Canada to provide P.E.I. with continuous rail service-not only to complete the P.E.I. railway but to maintain it. It was an article of faith as far as Islanders were concerned. The continued existence of the railway was something akin to an inalienable right.
After the P.E.I. railway was completed and, eventually, after the Intercolonial Railway in the Atlantic region was completed in the 1870s, the two railways were meshed and incorporated into the Canadian National Railways system around 1919. But, even though changes were made to the specifics of the arrangements so far as the railways were concerned, the fact remains that the commitment continues to this very day.
It is interesting to note that in August, 1973, there was a strike on Prince Edward Island in CN marine service, which effectively cut P.E.I. off from the rest of Canada for a period of time, to the great detriment of the local economy. P.E.I. then took the federal government to court, even as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, because it considered that strike to be a breach of the Terms of Union of Prince Edward Island in confederation. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that P.E.I. won its case, which further confirms the very strong commitment the federal government has to our island province to maintain the railway connection. That commitment extends to the region as a whole, because the Intercolonial Railway was completed as a term of entry for the other maritime provinces into confederation. It was part of their confederation bargain. The Intercolonial was not set up as a profit-making enterprise; it was set up for the better interests of the region as a whole, even though that particular facility might incur a loss.
When the Canadian National Railways took over the Intercolonial Railway, as it did other parts of the railway system in Canada, to provide a country-wide system, such a commitment to continue railway service-and a minimal service at that, below which the region would not be allowed to fall-has never, so far as the courts have been concerned, been removed. The commitment continues to the present.
1 want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that while this commitment stands, the federal government, almost since the time of the collapse of the Intercolonial Railway-or since its absorbtion by CN-has pursued a steady, programmed effort to downgrade the railway throughout the Atlantic region. The most recent example, of course, is Canadian National Express. I want to dwell on it for a couple of minutes, by way of illustration only.
My colleagues have demonstrated very adequately this afternoon and evening the importance of that vital service. It is important to business people, to farmers, to fishermen and, indeed, to the general public. It is an essential tool of commerce for the whole area. I am talking about the general field of small parcel delivery and service.
In 1976 there were 19 CN Express terminals in the mari-times. That figure was later reduced to 15. In 1981 there was a plan to slash the number to five, a reduction of something like 76 per cent. At one point Prince Edward Island was to be denied locally-supplied CN service; to the extent it would be allowed to continue, the whole shebang was to be turned over to profit-oriented trucking companies. E cannot stress strongly enough the inadequacy of such an arrangement.
I have nothing against trucking companies, but I regret very much that the trucking companies which would have taken over this service on P.E.I. were off-island. Trucking companies, just as with any other profit-oriented enterprise, are not designed essentially to provide a public service in the way CN was set up to do. If the express service were turned over to trucking companies it would be reduced and provided on the terms of the trucking companies which are not always in the public interest. Trucking companies do not have a national network such as CN's. They are profit-oriented and do not have a public mandate as CN does. Nor do they have the expertise to assist their patrons, the people who use express service, with packaging, advice on the proper mode of transport, or the identification of individual parcels which are lost. Trucking companies do not have that expertise, and they have no particular interest in developing it. Moreover, when two or three carriers get into the act, add-on charges are involved. So, the eventual cost to consumers would be very much higher than if the existing CN service were continued.
Largely because of pressure from myself, the government of Prince Edward Island, the CN employees involved and the public at large, the minister undertook to be in touch with Dr. Bandeen, the president of Canadian National, to have Prince Edward Island exempted from the scheduled ten CN Express office closures. I welcome that and congratulate the minister for taking the initiative. But the fact remains that the number of employees has been reduced from 41 to 19, and the service has been substantially truncated. It will be basically restricted to within Charlottetown, and between Charlottetown and other off-island centres. Most of the connections between Charlottetown and other communities within the island will be severed. Apparently the figure of 19 employees includes one manager, but that was not my understanding of the commitment that CN Express would maintain 19 full-time employees on P.E.I. In addition, CN officials, perhaps unbeknownst to the minister, have been fiddling with the numbers to the extent of threatening to keep only 11, 12 or 13 full-time employees, with the others only on a part-time or relief basis, to be called into service at the discretion of CN.
March 17, 1981

I know the minister would not breach the commitment he gave in the House on February 4 and February 24 to maintain CN Express services on the island at 19 full-time employees, or in that vicinity. I will hold him to his commitment. I am sure, because he is an honourable man, that he will live up to it. Also, I congratulate him for keeping the Sydney office open on the grounds that that particular community is in a low employment area and thus needs special consideration.
In my remaining minutes, I want to stress that the CN Express situation is only an illustration. I appreciate the argument made sometimes by CN that it was losing money with the service, something like $50 million in 1979. But one wonders how hard CN tried to turn a profit. I suspect it did the same thing with CN Express as it did with CN passenger service. The company created a situation which caused people not to use the service, so that it could use the non-use of the service as a rationale for abolishing it, when the real reason had nothing to do with whether or not the service was being used by the public. I find it hard to believe that CN cannot compete with private couriers and similar specialized operaiors who are often proceeding on a shoestring. In any event, the CN Express on P.E.I. was operating at near-peak capacity. I am told by people who have looked very closely at the figures that over a period of time the CN Express terminal on Prince Edward Island consistently operated at 95 per cent capacity, by CN's own standards. It is, therefore, beyond my understanding how CN could threaten to abolish that service on the grounds that it was being underused.
The profit of Canadian National Railways in 1979 was $208 million, up $72.1 million from 1978. It is clear that CN is hell-bent on making a profit at the expense of providing services, at the expense of its public mandate, and at the expense of the terms of entry into confederation by Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces. It is operating like a private corporation. It is no different from Canadan Pacific or, for that matter, Eastern Provincial Airways. It has set upon a course which emphasizes consolidation, bigness and concentrating on key market centres, major metropolitan market centres such as Montreal and Toronto. By definition that almost excludes the Atlantic provinces. This emphasis will have various consequences in terms of our prospects for regional development and alleviating the economic disparities we suffer.
Other examples could be cited of the steady withdrawal of Canadian National from the Atlantic region. In Prince Edward Island there was the removal of passenger service; the efforts of CN, some of them successful, to abandon important rail lines; and the threat to the carload centre, the major office for the movement of heavy freight to and from the province and within it. Most recently there was the threat to the rail car service centre which provides emergency and routine services to 7he cars; it has been moved practically holus-bolus to another, off-island centre. Finally there is the example of CN Express cited earlier. They are all part of a pattern of programmed erosion of the operations of Canadian National on Prince Edward Island.
Transportation
This is most regrettable. The P.E.I, case parallels other horror stories to which some of my colleagues have addressed themselves; including the downplaying of the Halifax harbour and in particular the Dart Containerline crisis in Halifax. It is a truly tragic situation to which Canadian National is a party.
We must appreciate that transportation is not a luxury. It is not only important; it is essential to the region. It is a vital tool for economic development. We in the Atlantic region have particular requirements by virtue of the fact that we are far from our markets and are also often far from our sources of supply. We need in Canada a total look at the federal government's plans for transportation in the region over the next five years. In particular we must look at the special role of Canadian National in those plans. We must look at the role of air and other modes of transportation in that over-all scheme. It is because the federal government has failed miserably to sustain a regionally-sensitive transportation policy that I call upon all members of the House to condemn the government and the record of the Minister of Transport. The government does not appreciate the objectives of a regionally-sensitive transportation policy, the realization of which was one of the terms of entry into confederation by the maritime provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport wishes to be recognized he must be in his place.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the members on this side of the House have shown that the government is not neglecting the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: In fact, the opposite is true. This government is committed to, and deeply involved in, every mode of transport. It is promoting regional development in the Atlantic provinces, and on a per capita basis the Atlantic provinces are in the enviable position of receiving twice the national average-


An hon. Member:: How come things are in such a mess?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) brought up the matter of the Newfoundland railways. A labour agreement was reached between this government and the union in February. The entire program is being accepted, since it is being made possible through federal assistance. The syncro-lift in St. John's has been approved by the minister. He agreed to the joint venture between the CNR and the province. He assured the exchange of land. Now that the design is completed, tenders will be called in the very near future on a $21.5 million syncro-lift. The St. John's airport already has ILS service and there is an additional ILS runway being installed which will be completed this year. St. John's airport will receive $4.3 million in capital improvements in 1981-82.

March 17, 1981
Transportation
The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) says there is no consultation with the provinces. In August and September, 1980, the provincial government, the tourist industry, the trucking industry and the Atlantic provinces transportation committee were consulted on ferries. The previous Tory government approved a 10 per cent increase in ferry rates. We are doing the same thing to meet inflation. We should note that through our constitutional link with the Atlantic provinces this government is providing $4.6 million to the Northumberland ferries and $9 million to Borden-Tormentine ferries, which represents 80 per cent of their budget and costs.
This government is supporting the Saint John potash terminal with $23 million and the Halifax-Fairview terminal with $29 million. There really is no discrimination against the Atlantic provinces. We have presented facts which show that the Atlantic provinces are the beneficiary of extensive federal assistance. The minister has described how, through consultation and with the support of the provinces, ever more effective programs are now under way.
This motion presented by the opposition should be voted down, along with the amendment thereto by the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: It is time the opposition focused its attention on something new and quit resuscitating and dredging up old and untrue myths.


Walter David Baker: Do not use the word "dredging"!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The word "dredging" is a no-no, it is unparliamentary!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) says in his motion that transportation is still a major problem. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be aware of his own provincial government's green paper issued by the department of development entitled "Toward an Economic Development Strategy for Nova Scotia". This paper states, in part:
Transportation costs, as a proportion of the final costs of manufactured goods sold, have decreased-and now account for 2 to 3 per cent of the cost of goods sold by Nova Scotia firms. Compared to labour, raw materials and financial expenditures, transportation is of a second order of significance-important, but certainly not large enough to be an overriding factor in the development of the region.
This government is committed to look after the transportation of the entire nation and the region, and it will continue to do so efficiently and effectively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings
now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 58(9).
The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than 5 members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is therefore on the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
(Division No. 48)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Jarvis
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
Lawrence
Lewis
MacDonald
(Miss)
Malone
Manly
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McMillan
Miller
++NAYS
Messrs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Transportation	
Messrs.	
Peterson	Savard
Pinard	Simmons
Portelance	Stollery
Prud'homme	Tardif
Robinson	Tessier
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Tobin
Rompkey	Tousignant
Rooney	Turner
Rossi	Watson
Roy	Weatherhead
	Yanakis-119.

Wednesday, March 18, 1981