1984-11-21

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the United Nations Disarmament Committee voted 111 to 12 for a verifiable bilateral nuclear freeze. Canada was one of the 12 that voted against the resolution. Among those countries that voted for the resolution were two NATO countries, while two other NATO countries abstained. Also voting for the resolution for the first time was Australia, which last year voted against it.
I know that last year, under the Liberal Government, Canada also voted against a similar resolution. I was personally opposed to that position at that time. The vote yesterday was unfortunate, but now is the time for all of us to rethink that position.
The Committee's decision will go to the General Assembly in about two weeks for final disposition. The Government has said that it will re-examine foreign policy. I urge it to put this matter high on its agenda and to reverse its position before the General Assembly vote.
At the present time there are 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world which have a destructive force one million times the Hiroshima bomb. Last year those weapons cost approximately $1 billion. These weapons could destroy over 800,000 people in less than one day. Now is the time to stop this race to destruction.

Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the newly elected Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) promised in his campaign brochures and advertisements to abolish tolls on the Champlain Bridge, and he made this a big issue. On "Face a face" on CKVL, the
Hon. Member also mentioned that this promise had the blessing of his party and his leader. But now, Mr. Speaker, it is a different story. It must have been a shock to the newly elected Member for La Prairie on Tuesday, when the Minister of State (Transport) (Mr. Bouchard) answered that he had no intention of doing away with the tolls in the near future. I suppose from now on the Hon. Member will perhaps refrain from asking questions in the House without first knowing the answer. Meanwhile, the people in Brossard, La Prairie and on the South Shore are still paying to cross the Champlain Bridge, despite all the promises made by the Member for La Prairie and his party.
I therefore want to ask that tolls on the Champlain Bridge be immediately removed as promised by the Conservative Member for La Prairie and otherwise, that the new Member for La Prairie resign, Mr. Speaker.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of Parliament I rise for the first time today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aurèle Gervais: I had not planned to make a statement today. As a matter of fact it is not a happy occasion for me, due to the nature of the topic. I refer to the nationally tragic incident which happened in my riding last Friday, more particularly in my home town. Of course I refer to the senseless shooting of OPP Officer Vern Miller of the Matheson detachment.
During the weekend I was inundated with calls from constituents in my riding expressing their view that capital punishment should be reintroduced in the House as soon as possible. They mentioned that, through polls and surveys, an overwhelming majority of Canadians wish the capital punishment issue to be brought before the House. On their behalf, and on behalf of all Canadians, the majority of Canadians who wish capital punishment to be reintroduced, I urge the Government to place it on its agenda as soon as possible for debate and a free vote.

November 21, 1984


THE CENSUS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the Romans recognized even in ancient times the indispensable requirement for a census in the determination of public policy. Of course the census counts people, but it appears that to this Government people do not count, at least not until 1991, in view of the announced cancellation of the 1986 census. This action has escaped critical notice until now.
Now we have the Royal Commission Report on Equality in Employment. Its recommendations for legislated employment equity indicate a critical requirement not only for census data but for an expanded data base respecting numbers and employment patterns for women, the disabled, native people, and visible minorities.
Indeed the report is complex and will require time for implementation. However, the Government has an easy way of quickly signalling its commitment to the achievement of employment equity-it must reconsider its cancellation of the 1986 census and implement it with an expanded data base, in light of the additional statistical information necessary for the effective implementation of the Abella report.
This is a step that must be taken. Otherwise, it will again reinforce the impression of the Government that social justice or sacred trusts should not stand in the way of prosperity for the privileged few.


TOURISM
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the recent government financial statement contains several changes which are of great concern to the tourism industry on Prince Edward Island, from increases to ferry rates, to increases to the cost of entering and using facilities in our national park, to increases in gasoline prices. The entire industry will in some way be affected.
Applications from the tourism industry for assistance under IRDP will no longer be accepted by DRIE. Instead, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has indicated that tourism projects will be dealt with through instruments such as federal-provincial agreements. I trust the Minister has taken steps to ensure that the tourism industry will be fully represented in the months ahead while the transition from IRDP to the new and as of yet unnamed program is introduced.
It is my sincere hope that the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan), as an islander with a great interest in the future of the industry, has brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-
Grenier), the dire implications that these changes will have on the Prince Edward Island tourism industry, not to mention on islanders themselves.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) if she intended to initiate a parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the nuclear industry as the Progressive Conservative Government of 1979 intended to undertake. In her response the Minister conveyed two impressions which should be cause for concern on the part of the clear majority of Canadians who are concerned about any further investment in nuclear energy, whether their concern arises from the increasing cost of this energy option, the environmental hazard it poses, or the connection between nuclear power and the nuclear arms race.
The Minister said that she would have to consult with AECL to see if it thought an inquiry would be useful. This is like asking the Mafia if it thinks an investigation into organized crime would be useful. Then she made sense of this incredible answer by commenting that an inquiry might not be in order because, after all, it might only be a problem of marketing. She appears unable to ask the question whether the product should in fact be for sale either here or abroad. In this she has revealed just how uncritical an approach the Conservatives may be taking toward this issue-reminiscent of the Liberals.
I call on the Government to initiate an inquiry into the nuclear industry in consultation with groups like the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and to reverse the cuts in environmental services, conservation, and alternative energy. Let us have some evidence that we are on the eve of 1985 and not at the beginning of some terrible flashback to 1955.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian petrochemical industry was to some extent pleased with the financial statement made in the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8. The announcement that the petroleum compensation charge, PCC, would not be increased on crude oil used as a feedstock for the production of petrochemicals, was one the industry had been waiting to hear from the new Government. It has demonstrated the intent of this Government to aid, without resorting to financial bail-outs, an industry that has suffered under an
November 21, 1984

unfair tax burden for years. The PCC will, however, be increased on this industry's crude oil consumption for energy requirements.
The recent announcement by the Government of the Province of Alberta to the effect that ethylene producers there would receive bridge financing amounting to 25 per cent of their tax burden to relieve the fiscal problems of our gas based Canadian petrochemical industry, is an indication that Alberta felt it must take the initiative while waiting for federal government energy policy action. I submit this action by Alberta has swung the pendulum over to the gas-based petrochemical side of the arc and something must be done to equalize the situation.
The Ontario oil-based companies, which are now paying more for their crude oil used for energy requirements, can ill afford any increase in their tax loads. I must serve the Government with notice that the situation is, for some, fast becoming intolerable. 1 submit the job is not nearly finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


POSTPONEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INCREASE URGED
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to request that our new Government curtail the cost of government. In his speech to the House on November 8 the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) set Canada on a new course of restraint and review, urging Members to find ways not only to reduce the federal deficit but, in his words, "to reduce the burden of unnecessary government". Surely my colleagues in this House will agree that Members of Parliament are effective legislators and problem solvers and that they perform a valuable service to our nation, but how many members are enough? Two hundred and eleven? Two hundred and eighty-two?
The Canadian Electoral Boundaries Commission, under the authority of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, will soon recommend that our number grow to 310, five new members in British Columbia alone.
Members of Parliament perform a valuable service, Mr. Speaker, but we are expensive. Now that my Government has shown the lead by reducing the salaries of senior Ministers, I repectfully ask that my Government postpone the readjustment of electoral boundaries until the economy of our nation improves. The savings to the treasury would total in the millions.
Oral Questions


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, a number of Canadians have expressed concern at delays they have encountered in securing expeditious transfer of title to land from the Crown, particularly in their dealings with the PFRA. The PFRA during the 1930s and 1940s constructed a number of water storage reservoirs and irrigation projects which it continues to operate. Some years ago the sale of land by Canada within the irrigation projects commenced at the individual lessee's request. Agreements for sale were made, and now, when the purchaser wants to acquire actual title to the land, considerable problems arise.
The purchaser requests letters patent and makes final payment for the land. From that point forward the request follows a complex series of procedures involving surveys, searches, translation, ministerial approval, Privy Council approval, preparation of documents by the Department of Justice, reviews by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and land titles office processing.
Transfer of title requires up to 20 months following the existing procedures. These excessive time delays cause considerable hardship to those individuals involved. They ask the Ministers to review this currently untenable situation with a view to streamlining the process.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Report on Equality and Employment prepared by the Commission headed by Judge Rosalie Abella says clearly that equal pay for work of equal value is an essential part of employment equity and contract compliance. My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. During the Party Leaders' debate in the course of the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that not only he supported the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, but he added, and I quote: "I am prepared to go even further." My question is: Has he already given some very clear directives to his ministers, to use his own words, for starting the job classification process, as promised during the election campaign?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have initiated the process. Meanwhile, I am reading and analysing Judge Abella's very impressive and timely

November 21, 1984
Oral Questions
report, and I expect to be able to give the Hon. Member further details in the near future.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to digest Judge Abella's report, and when he meets his provincial colleagues at the First Ministers' meeting on St. Valentine's Day, will he urge, particularly his Conservative colleagues, to legislate equal pay for work of equal value, and to legislate affirmative action or, as Judge Abella puts it, employment equity for women, visible minorities, the disabled, and native peoples, or will he seek only, in the words of the Throne Speech, to further define the matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I urge not only my Conservative colleagues. This is not a partisan issue. Fairness for women is something that concerns us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We plan to seek the support and guidance of members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party for programs that are designed to do what is long overdue and something which, dismayingly, and 1 say this with regret was not done in 20 long Liberal years, and that is to bring about a degree of equality for women in this country. That is what we are going to try to do.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 would think that the Liberal record on women's issues stands for itself as an example to us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMPOSITION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, on May 25 in Toronto, the Prime Minister promised to double the representation of women on federal boards and commissions. There happen to be no women on the Deputy Prime Minister's cost-cutting advisory board, no women on the CBC chopping block committee, no women on the new VIA Rail advisory committee, and no women among the new CDIC or fisheries projects. 1 believe the Prime Minister got off to a good start by nominating eight women as cabinet Ministers. Would he talk to the cabinet Ministers and ask them to follow his example when appointing people to boards and commissions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know of the Right Hon. Member's very substantial degree of concern and record of accomplishment in this area. I would like to assure him, because it is not a partisan issue, that we shall be giving the highest priority to ensuring, in a way that I hope meets with his agreement, the proper and fair representation of women throughout the Government of Canada. That may, and indeed will, require legislative considerations that we will bring forward. At all times, I know that the principal objective will be fairness and economic equality for women and, as Judge Abella points out, for other groups in our society as well.


ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM SUGGESTION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last night on the television show The Journal, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration announced with fanfare and pride that the commitment to equal pay appeared for the first time in the Throne Speech of 1984. I would like to bring to her attention that equal pay has been part of the Canadian law since 1978. The issue now is how to make that principle work. I am pleased that the Prime Minister calls it a high priority.
The Minister stated on The Journal that she would have a lot of trouble with enforcement, and that further studies would have to be undertaken. Does the Minister agree with Judge Abella that the enforcement mechanism is necessary? Does she so agree?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member and the House that no Government heretofore ever had the courage to incorporate the phrase "equal pay for work of equal value" in a Throne Speech. I am glad to inform her of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are 117 recommendations in the report. It is a very valuable report, and I hope that every Member will take the opportunity to read it. One of the most valuable parts of the report is the introduction of the term "employment equity" into the language, so that we do indeed know about what we are talking about. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that all of the recommendations will be considered by Cabinet. Then we will decide whether legislation will be necessary to bring about the desired end.


STUDY OF REPORT
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe I heard the Prime Minister allude to legislation. However, there is a difference between law and rhetoric. Just apply the law.
November 21, 1984

[ Translation]
Could the Minister inform the House and women in Canada today which department is analysing the Abella Report and when appropriate legislation will be introduced in this House, covering the areas of affirmative action, contract compliance, training and equality before the law?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my Department, the Department of Employment and Immigration, is primarily responsible for examining the report's recommendations. The recommendations are later examined by the whole Cabinet, while any decisions are made by the entire Cabinet.


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night the Political Affairs Committee at the United Nations took a very important vote on the profoundly important question of nuclear disarmament. A motion submitted by Sweden and Mexico called for a mutual, verifiable, balanced nuclear freeze applicable both to the Soviet Union and to the United States. That motion was carried overwhelmingly by a vote of 111 to 12.1 want to ask the Prime Minister why the Government of Canada joined the minority of only 12 nations in the world to vote against that important resolution.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the abstention was taken by Canada at the United Nations, as it has been on previous occasions by ambassadors representing Canada, because we believe that if the world is to make progress toward a reduction of nuclear arms-as this Government is dedicated to helping the world do-we must seek effective actions which persuade the superpowers. It is our judgment, reflected by Canada's vote at the United Nations, that a declaration on the freeze would not have advanced the cause of reducing nuclear armament.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs offered some interesting rhetoric, but he did not give us a single reason which led him to reach that conclusion.


VERIFIABLE NUCLEAR FREEZE PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister, who expressed concern about disarmament during the election campaign, has now decided not to deal with the question, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this. Considering that the House of Representatives in the United States, and countries as different as Australia and Greece, all support a mutual, verifiable nuclear
Oral Questions
freeze which has to be accepted both by the United States and the Soviet Union before it becomes operative, why, in Heaven's name, could not a Government, which was elected in Canada in part to produce some change in international affairs, support initiatives already taken by people outside of our country who are working seriously-not simply rhetorically-toward nuclear disarmament?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of the gravest importance. I believe that is understood by all Members on both sides of the House. The Leader of the New Democratic Party asks why we did not support initiatives taken in the past by other countries. The simple reality is, sadly, that those other initiatives have not worked. Adding Canada's voice to the motion would have had the effect of causing tensions within the Alliance. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the instrument by which we have the greatest opportunity to bring the most influence to bear upon the United States, and an action of that kind would have been counterproductive, in our view.


John Edward Broadbent: The Government will clearly have a lot of influence with President Reagan if it agrees with everything he does. That is not influence, that is supine acquiescence to what the United States wants to do.


REASONS FOR CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us why it is that Walter Mondale, a candidate for the Presidency of the United States-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I hear some of the Minister's back-benchers, 61 of whom called for a nuclear freeze during the election campaign, that is, 61 of the Members over there. Many Canadians, including many of his own back-benchers; Walter Mondale in the United States; members of NATO, such as Greece; members of the regional equivalent of NATO in Southeast Asia, such as Australia, could all stand up on this profoundly important question of nuclear disarmament and show a little initiative, show a little leadership. Would the Minister tell us why Canada could not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me why other countries voted as they did. That question is better put to them. The question I can answer is why Canada voted as we did. We are seeking every practical means to reduce the danger of nuclear armaments-


Mr. Deans:: But what?


Charles Joseph Clark: -and of nuclear conflict in the world. I am asked to name one. One means is to use the strong

November 21, 1984
Oral Questions
and privileged position which Canada enjoys as an influential and respected member of NATO, and to use that position-


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Allan MacEachen. Thank you very much.


Charles Joseph Clark: -by maintaining the strength of the Alliance, which would not have been maintained and, indeed, might have been weakened had we cast our vote in a different way. We voted at the United Nations in a way in which we solemnly believe will move the world away from the danger of nuclear war.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.
Since, according to the Abella report it is imperative every five years to collect census data on the participation of target groups to the work force, and since the 1986 census would have provided the new data required for any affirmative action program concerning women, native people and the disabled, how can the Minister now justify the cancellation of the 1986 census?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the decision the Government took were outlined by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. They have to do with the terrible financial situation of the Government. As to the question of whether Statistics Canada can and will provide the data necessary for government Departments to make the decisions which are so necessary in order to tackle the problems alluded to by the Hon. Member, I can tell him that he can be well assured that Statistics Canada will, in fact, be in a position to gather this data. It has a variety of techniques. It has very able professionals-


Mr. Axworthy:: They have no work to do.


Harvie Andre: -who will ensure that we have adequate data to accomplish these goals.


REQUEST THAT CANCELLATION BE RESCINDED
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, how can the Government be serious about affirmative action when it wants to destroy the data base on which such programs are established? Will the Minister stand up in this House and tell those big bullies in front of him, Erik the Dreaded, and Mike the Knife, to go and do their cutting elsewhere and keep their hands out of the census?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that his concern about the data that Statistics Canada produces for Government and others in our society is shared by myself and my colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister, indeed by everyone in the Government. We will be doing everything necessary to ensure that adequate data are available.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and also relates to the Abella Commission report on employment equity, which report I think makes tremendous sense concerning the direction in which we should be going. The American experience also shows that it makes economic sense in terms of productivity in that country. Therefore, in view of the fact that last night the Minister said she agreed in principle with this report but had some problems concerning the enforcement agency, I wonder, if instead of leaving it to voluntary approaches, as the Liberal Government did in years gone by, will she now make a commitment to this House that she will implement some of the recommendations in the report, and tell us when.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that, with 117 different recommendations, it would be difficult at this point to single out those that will be implemented, or when. Having said that, I assure the Hon. Member that, yes, we will be implementing certain of the recommendations just as quickly as we can.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said on August 15, I believe it was, during the debate on women's issues, that it was inconceivable that a Government accept a principle but not implement that principle. In light of that, will the Minister take the Prime Minister's advice and assure this House that she will be implementing the major recommendations in the Abella Commission report within the next three or four months?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the report that Judge Abella handed down is in two major sections. The first half of it makes a very fair and compelling case for employment equity, as she calls it. The second part of the report talks about the various ways in which this might be implemented. She makes a number of recommendations and those are the recommendations we will be studying. She does not say: "This is the way,
November 21, 1984

and the only way". She makes a number of recommendations. It will take a bit of time for Cabinet to look at these and decide which we think are the best methods of implementation. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that will be done very quickly.


FINANCE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, the same question I have put to various Ministers of Finance for the last seven or eight years, always with negative results. In the past people purchases federal government annuities in good faith, and these annuities are now paying a very low return. Will the Minister take the necessary measures to introduce some relief for these annuity holders either by increasing the rate of return, as recommended by a committee back in 1976, or failing that, take action to redeem these low-yielding annuities, some of which were purchased 25 to 30 years ago and more, redeem them at full face value and thus eliminate this unfortunate problem once and for all?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the Hon. Member's concern about the returns paid on these annuities. I know he is aware that the annuities were originally a contract between the Government and the purchasers, so that is a consideration which has to be taken into account. However, I assure him that I will look into the matter as I know he is very concerned and has expressed these points of view over a number of years, and I will get back to him.


HIBERNIA OIL FIELD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. There is a great deal of concern in the oil and gas industry about the federal Government's agreement to the Province of Newfoundland's request to postpone release of the environmental impact study on Hibernia production prepared by Mobil Oil. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Canada oil and gas lands administration has in fact received a copy of this study?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that is the case. Were the Minister here she might be able to provide the Hon. Member with more detailed information. That was the advice I received, but I will check into it and convey a more detailed answer to him.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT STUDY BE TABLED
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that they have a copy of the study. If that is so, will the Prime Minister undertake to obtain a copy of this study and table it in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, I will make that undertaking on behalf of the Minister.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the very important subject of contract compliance. The Liberal Government's voluntary approach to affirmative action in the private sector failed dismally, with only 71 out of 1,400 companies making any progress in this area. Does the Minister intend to carry on the Liberal approach or will she commit herself, as the Prime Minister committed himself, to recommend contract compliance to Cabinet immediately?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows, as I do, that the Prime Minister's statement was to the effect that we would insist that companies providing services to the federal Government create and implement programs and timetables for attracting, training, and advancing women. That would be applied to other groups mentioned by the Abella report as well. The recommendations made by Judge Abella will help us to bring about implementation of that statement by the Prime Minister.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister really is letting women down who I think want action now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Minister immediately carry out what she is entitled to do under the Human Rights Act? Will she move now on the whole question of implementing employment equity, as she can under the Human Rights Act?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I am not letting women down, I do not intend to let women down, and I will never be in a position where I am accused of letting women down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 21, 1984
Oral Questions


RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The Abella Commission identified and declared war on the many economic inequalities facing visible minorities. It was forcefully stated that the war must start with an attack on racism. This and other courageous recommendations were the product of long consultations with numerous visible minority groups across Canada. They deserve and demand government action. My question is very simple. Will the Minister assure this House that he will pursue, without delay, implementation and advocacy of those recommendations in the report relating to visible minorities in Canada?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the fundamental thrust of the Abella report coincides in a great many ways with the report Equality Now!, an all-party committee report, one with which most Members of this House agree. This Government, as indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immmigration, is looking at the recommendations. Multicultural Canada is also looking at the recomendations. We intend to act just as quickly as we can on many of the recommendations which directly affect the visible minority community in our country.


Sergio Marchi: I hope someone starts to act rather than just to look.


DISCRIMINATION IN TAXI INDUSTRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. He is surely aware of the serious racial discrimination practices against blacks, East Indians, and Haitians in the Canadian taxi industry. Since his Department-


Mr. Speaker:: No. With great respect, the Member asked his first question with regard to the Abella Report. This is hardly a supplementary to that question. I appreciate the Member's concern, but I must establish does the Member have a supplementary question to his question with regard to the Abella report.


Sergio Marchi: I respect your decision, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Multiculturalism is surely aware of the discrimination against East Indians, Asians, and members of the Haitian community, in the taxi industry in this country. Will he petition the Minister of Transport to revoke any taxi licences of companies that are shown to be practising racial discrimination and are operating out of airports across the country? Will he, in fact, bring in new guidelines to ensure that such discrimination employment practices will stop in the future?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I am in touch with my colleague and good friend, the Minister of
Transport, on literally a daily basis. We will be discussing his concerns.


POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It also deals with the Abella report. Yesterday Judge Abella pointed out that among the groups she was dealing with, disabled persons and visible minorities had suffered from systematic discrimination in the past. There are various possibilities for redressing that situation. What possibility does the Minister see for taking early action on this, beyond the matter of contract compliance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I explained, there are some 117 recommendations in the Abella report. We will be studying them as a Cabinet and as individual Ministers to see which ones can be proceeded with most quickly.


LINGUISTIC DIFFICULTIES OF IMMIGRANTS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, what plans does the Minister have for those members of visible minorities who are recent immigrants to Canada and have difficulty speaking English or French? What plans does she have for expanding instruction in English or French, depending on where the persons are resident, in order to facilitate entry into the workforce by these members of the visible minorities?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question should more properly be directed to the Secretary of State with whom language requirements really lie.
Nevertheless, there are two areas in which this could be addressed. One is in making changes to the agreements under the National Training Act. Those will be on the agenda for the discussions which will take place in the forthcoming year. The other is with regard to ISAP, the Immigrant Settlement Adaptation Program, in my Department. I am sure that the Hon. Member will have noticed that the budget for that was increased by half a million dollars just the other day.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Yellowhead Highway which extends from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Kamloops, British Columbia, is the busiest highway route through the Province of Saskatchewan. The volume of traffic on that highway is even greater than that on the
November 21, 1984

Trans-Canada Highway. With increased traffic, there is a critical need for twin-laning of this highway.


Mr. Fulton:: It goes to Prince Rupert.


John Kenneth Gormley: In light of this, is the minsiter planning to designate the Yellowhead Highway as a national highway route? Will there be federal assistance for twin-laning of this particular highway?


An Hon. Member:: It goes to Prince Rupert. Tell him where it goes.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my NDP friends across the way wanted to remind the House that this route goes to Prince Rupert as well.
I share the views of the Hon. Member. The Yellowhead is indeed a very important artery. I also agree that it is a highway which carries a tremendous amount of traffic, and a mixture of traffic.
The Member will probably be aware that in 1979 the Government undertook a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces whereby the federal Government and the provinces would have shared in the upgrading of the Yellowhead. Unfortunately the Liberal Government chose to cancel that particular agreement. At the present time there is not in existence a provincial-federal highway agreement. The highway agreements which are in place are currently under review. I am sure that I will have an opportunity to explore this issue with the Yellowhead Highway Association.

[ Translation]


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, but first I would like to congratulate him on his appointment. My question relates to drastic cuts imposed on some of Canada's cultural organizations, and I refer of course to the CBC which will have to manage with $75 million less, but also to other entities such as the National Arts Centre, the CRTC and the Canada Council. Many people who work in that field are concerned and want to know whether those cuts apply only to fiscal year 1985-86, or whether they will be maintained throughout the Progressive Conservative mandate. Would the Minister therefore assure the House that the reduced budgets for fiscal year 1985-86 will not be the basis for the preparation of those cultural organizations' budgets in subsequent years? Can the Minister answer that question?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the budgetary cutbacks, which have prompted a review of certain bureaucratic practices so as to enable us to
Oral Questions
allocate more funds to creation and production, will of course be a permanent feature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am experiencing some difficulty because the Hon. Member has put two questions at the same time. They ought to be put separately. For the time being, the Hon. Member may put a supplementary. However, Hon. Members should indeed keep in mind the fact that they are not allowed to ask two different questions in the first question and then rise for a supplementary. This time, the Chair will allow a supplementary question.


Jacques Guilbault: I appreciate your tolerance, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-IMPACT OF CUT-BACKS
Jacques Guilbault: My supplementary question is for the same Minister. It appears that the CBC cuts would affect mainly the outlying areas. In other words, the hardest hit would be the regions of this country. Is the Minister able to tell us whether he will be ready to intervene to ensure that regional programming and jobs in far away regions of the country will be protected when the axe falls?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by the CBC management that they have issued a denial today concerning press reports alleging that decisions have been made as to how they will cut their budget for the year 1985-86. The CBC President himself has stated that no decision has yet been made and that the results of that exercise will not be known until the Department of Communications and the CBC have had consultations on the impact of budget cuts on the corporation's services.
The management has also indicated that, at head office as well as at the Montreal and Toronto network headquarters and in the regions, various scenarios are being studied to find a way to reduce the CBC budget by $75 million in 1985-86. As announced in the House, the priority in the decision-making process is to eliminate the less productive expenditures first and to maintain program services as much as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. When the Minister was in the Opposition she developed a reputation for being concerned about the aged and the unemployed. Indeed, she became known as a red Tory.

November 21, 1984
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of a recent report issued by the Minister's Department which accuses 55 to 65-year olds of ripping off the UIC system, is the Minister prepared to table in this House the impact studies which show where the so-called 55 to 65 year-old rip-off artists are located? Is she prepared to table the employment profile showing the jobs that are available to older Canadians?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that that report was given to the former Government last June, and it is not a report I have seen. However, I do want to tell the Hon. Member that my concern for older unemployed Canadians still exists. I do want him to know that it is because of that that we have already allocated $ 1 billion for new job opportunities and human resource development which will apply to older workers as well as to others in our system.


Ian Deans: Come on, Flora, that is nonsense.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We have as well, I may say, made the announcement concerning spouses-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do regret to interrupt the Minister but I think she has answered the question.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a sad day that this Minister has changed colour, Mr. Speaker. She is now blue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to put another question directly to the Minister, Mr. Speaker. I think Sine has cut off her oxygen.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS
John R. Rodriguez: To the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that indeed this is a well orchestrated campaign based on alleged abuse of the plan, to prepare and condition Canadians for amendments aimed at punishing older Canadians who are unemployed, when in fact the main purpose of these future amendments will be to shift the financial burden for the program from the Government to the employer-employee section of the plan?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not a fact.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It
was announced this week that between 85,000 and 90,000 immigrants would be admitted to Canada in 1985. This represents a decrease since 1980 of about 40 per cent. In excess of 50,000 people leave Canada each year and, therefore, the net increase in population in 1985 is going to be very modest. Part of the Government's success in achieving an economic renewal in this country will be to increase significantly the number of immigrants at the right point of time in the economic recovery cycle. I would like to emphasize the right point of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Bill Attewell: Would the Minister advise this House when she would predict that a reversal of the current downward trend in immigration would occur, so that we would be strategically poised to capitalize on the recovery?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the number of immigrants to Canada in 1983, and again this year 1984, is below the 90,000 level. Indeed, consultations that led up to setting the levels for 1985 were begun last April, long before this Government came to office. In other words, Sir, we will have had three years in a row where the immigration levels are below 90,000. That is a great concern to me, and it is for that reason that I plan to have a review of immigration policy, including the setting of the immigration levels. At that time we will be able to review, as well, the restrictions imposed by the former Government.

[ Translation]


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
First of all, I want to congratulate him on his recent appointment, and I hope that he will assume his responsibilities as dutifully as his predecessors.
Last June, a special committee chaired by Judge Marin was established to study the provisions of the Pension Act. This Committee was supposed to report within six months and suggest ways to improve the services guaranteed by the Veterans Act. Everyone will recall that one of the better reports, the Wood Report-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: My question is as follows, Mr. Speaker.
Did the Minister consult the Royal Canadian Legion and the National Veterans Council before cancelling the Special Committee and can he also tell us his reasons for doing so?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-
November 21, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: - I would like to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for their generous gesture, and to tell them I am so glad the Hon. Member has asked me this question because I was beginning to feel like a singer who went to a party, took his music, and nobody asked him to sing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Play it again, George.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am on the verge of becoming a conductor who has his orchestra out of control.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer very much indeed for his congratulations on my appointment, and 1 would like to congratulate him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -on being appointed the opposition critic for the most important Department in government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: In answer to the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: What was the question again? Repeat the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't rush into it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Please answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I cancelled this commission, Mr. Speaker, because I calculated, judging by the number of organizations and individuals who had indicated a desire to be heard by the commission, that it would take at least six months for these presentations to be heard all across Canada, and a further three months for the report to be written. I was not willing to wait nine months to receive this very important information, so I wrote a personal letter to the head of each veterans' organization that had indicated a desire to be heard, and to every individual who indicated a desire to be heard by the commission, and asked them to write to me direct exactly what they intended to present to the commission. These presentations have been coming in at a very good rate. They are being studied. They are being assessed, and I can assure the Hon. Member and Members of the House that where action is
Tabling of Documents
called for that action will be taken promptly, generously, and courteously.


Some Hon. Members:: 
IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question which is supplementary to the answer that she gave a moment ago about the immigration level for 1985. She knows that she has the authority to set that level. In view of the economic recovery which the Government confidently predicts, could not the level be set for the coming year at 100,000, bearing in mind the number of divided families who want to be re-united in Canada, and bearing in mind the important contribution that immigrants make as consumers and as workers in our country? Let us not try to spread the responsibility to the provinces. It is her job to set the levels. Why can they not be at 100,000?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that family reunification, as he mentioned, remains a number one priority for people coming to this country. As many people as are eligible under that category can come, so that means it can raise the levels above 90,000 to 100,000 during the year. I also want him to acknowledge, if he would, that we took steps when announcing these levels so that the number of refugees to this country will be increased next year as well.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, November 20, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
446

November 21, 1984
Supply
46(2), I should like to table in both official languages copies of the annual report of the Canadian Museum Construction Corporation.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot see if anyone is rising to present a petition because of the number of Members who are standing away from their chairs. Is the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) seeking to present a petition through the crowd? Would Hon. Members please take their seats or leave the Chamber?


CORPORATE TAX BREAKS-JOB CREATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of citizens of Toronto requesting Parliament to change the appropriate laws in 1984 so that in 1985 large corporations will receive tax breaks only in proportion to the number of net new jobs created and that the number of jobs created and the tax breaks be reported quarterly to Parliament.

[ Translation]


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 24.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAWYERS
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Justice?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: 655 lawyers are employed by the Department of Justice. This number includes 198 lawyers assigned to Government departments, agencies, boards, commissions and Crown Corporations.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw to your attention that the motion before the House stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who is ill and unable to be in the House today. I should like to seek unanimous consent of the House for the motion to be presented instead by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Mr. Speaker:: I presume there is unanimous consent for the change of mover in the circumstances. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


ALLOTTED DAY, S O. 62-TRANSPORT BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford) (for Mr. Ouellet) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its failure to carry out its election promises in the field of transportation and, more particularly, for its savage cuts to Government programs in the less advantaged and more isolated regions of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in a debate whose purpose is to raise, at the beginning of this session, the issue of the problems facing the transport industry in Canada, and especially the discrepancies between what was said by Government Members during the election campaign and what was done subsequently in terms of budgetary cutbacks or decisions that were made and announced to the Canadian public.
For months during the election campaign some incredible commitments were made, especially in Quebec and I shall be focussing more particularly on this aspect. Mr. Speaker, I remember reading that the Progressive Conservative Party and Party candidates, especially Members on the South Shore of
November 21, 1984

Montreal, were committed to abolishing tolls on the Champlain Bridge. Yesterday in the House, the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) went so far as to contradict his colleague from La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). Yet, during the election campaign, the candidate from La Prairie had been saying: This is ridiculous, the Liberals are totally ignorant of what the people on the South Shore need. We are going to close the tolls on the Champlain Bridge. We are going to follow the example set by the Government of Quebec when it removed tolls on the Autoroute des Cantons de l'Est and the Autoroute du Nord. And after making these solemn promises, Mr. Speaker, and saying on television in front of all Canadians that this was not just a personal commitment on the part of the candidate from La Prairie but a commitment by the Progressive Conservative Party yesterday, the Minister of State for Transport rose in the House and said that well, six million dollars is too much to spend on the people of the South Shore. Let them be discriminated against and let them go on paying the toll.
That was not the tune they were singing during the election campaign. Another commitment out the window, another promise broken. Now he says: Well, maybe when the economic situation improves. In other words, don't hold your breath.
Mr. Speaker, this has been going on since this Government was sworn in. During the election campaign, that great Montrealer, who is now the Leader of the Government, said that Montreal must once again become Canada's metropolis. He said that at Place Ville Marie. Two weeks after his swearing in, he had to decide whether to keep an office in Montreal or move it elsewhere, what did he do? Montreal's role as a metropolis and the commitment made at Place Ville-Marie were forgotten and it was decided to move the Canadian Aviation Safety Board to Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) would be very pleased with this decision, but the truth of the matter is that this Minister who claims to be in favour of consultation and to practice party solidarity, this same Minister made this decision without consulting the main parties concerned, although he claims he did. However, we have been informed by some important people in Montreal, by groups that are concerned about Montreal's future, that they were not consulted before the decision was made.
Mr. Speaker, in the field of transport, promises are becoming more and more .. . the Minister of State for Transport is here, and 1 am glad to see that, because not long ago he was in my riding, supposedly to engage in ministerial consultations. Ministerial consultations my eye, Mr. Speaker! The Minister of State for Transport sent invitations only to Progressive Conservative Members. 1 do hope that expenses were paid by the Progressive Conservative caucus because the Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and the Member for Shefford had something to say to the Minister of State for Transport. We had regional problems to submit to him and we were
Supply
convinced that, this being a supposedly ministerial consultation, all interested people would be convened regardless of their political affiliation. They claim that their consultations are at the Minister's level, Mr. Speaker, but they were consulting the caucus, period.


An Hon. Member:: As the Pequistes used to do.


Jean-C. Lapierre: But look at what he did. Mr. Speaker, you will realize just how strangely that caucus can behave.
Naturally the Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Charest) had convinced his caucus to support the VIA Rail service. Never mind everybody, he said the day after: We will form the new government.
Not to worry, VIA Rail will be back in business and people will still see those trains crossing the Eastern Townships.
The budget has been slashed, Mr. Speaker, but that did not prevent the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) from stating, as reported in the Tribune of Thursday, October
25:
VIA Rail services will be restored.
Mr. Speaker, that statement appeared in the paper.


An Hon. Member:: He speaks the same language as the Pequistes.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Since the Minister made that solemn commitment and claimed that he would honour his election promise, everybody in the region has been saying: Finally, they have lived up to their promise. But today, Mr. Speaker, the people realize that they were mistaken, as they were in the case of most other promises, because they were sure that services would be restored. The government is not so sure anymore, and that is why a month later, on November 19, it decided to set up a task force on rail passenger services. Should the task force ever come to the conclusion that services ought not to be restored, neither the Minister nor the government will bear the blame, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Blame the others.


Jean-C. Lapierre: But in spite of all that . . . You know, Mr. Speaker, if this government keeps bending backwards it will break its back. In all cases where they had firm commitments, they are conducting studies and keep saying they are consulting people. In my opinion, the people of Quebec will realize that, generally speaking, the election promises were only a smoke-screen. The people of the South Shore heard this confirmed yesterday by the Minister himself. People in the Eastern Townships also knew it because of the statements which were made subsequently. I note, for instance, that the press release is in the name of the Minister of Transport. In fact, the senior Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) may want to deny the statement made by the Minister of State

November 21, 1984
Supply
for Transport. At times, one might wonder who speaks for what.


An Hon. Member:: They are in consultation with each other.


Jean-C. Lapierre: They are in consultation with each other, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Minister of Transport will take care-


An Hon. Member:: He is coaching him.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -will take care of the commitment made by his Minister of State, that they can discuss it, and most importantly, that they can act upon it Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Exactly.


Jean-C. Lapierre: 1 am convinced of one thing, Mr. Speaker, namely that, when a decision is made, it will not be submitted to the committee.
The Minister of Transport is probably explaining to his Minister of State that he should not have committed himself so quickly because you must first consider the issue, and then delay the process. Mr. Speaker, who promised the moon to the Canadian people, and especially to Quebecers before this Government was elected? Of course, everyone knows this, but it is especially true as concerns transport, and the Members opposite have not delivered yet. They have had opportunities to make firm commitments, but in every case, the matter has been referred to review committees. Will they be considering these issues until the next election so that they can make the same promises a second time, Mr. Speaker? This is the question which we must ask ourselves. If they believe transport to be so essential for the economy of Quebec and of Canada as a whole, why are they still trying to hide behind a multitude of review committees?
1 am anxious to hear the Minister of State for Transport in coming weeks and months speak to the House about the Crow rate, and I am anxious to hear the Quebec Members opposite speak about the Crow rate, about the question of whether the payments should be made to the railways or to the farmers, and so on. I am convinced that they will set up another review committee and that they will again consider the matter for quite a while in an effort to reconcile their differences.
Mr. Speaker, I think that, during the last few months, all Canadians, and especially Quebecers, have realized that most of the commitments that were made are now being postponed or shelved. I hope and trust that the Minister of State for Transport intends to solve certain issues, and I am convinced that, if he had the authority to do so and if his colleague, the Minister of Finance, did not put roadblocks in his way by cutting the VIA budget and if the other Minister of Transport stopped piling up review committees, he could make decisions to follow up on the commitments made by his own colleagues.
I come back once more to the people of the South Shore because everyone knows how important this issue was during the election campaign. Everybody knows it was promised to
the South Shore people. Everybody knows that in the Eastern Townships, VIA Rail was the main issue during the election campaign, and now he comes here and says he is going to do it. But then there will be studies. Well, who is running that department-the task forces, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen)?
Those are a few examples which show that, in transportation as in many other areas, after bringing down the hatchet, after reneging on their commitments, the Members of that Government try to hide behind one or any number of committees. Hopefully they will have the courage to go back to the constituencies where they made those commitments. Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that all our Canadian airports should be getting new asphalt runways if we were to believe the promises made by the Progressive Conservative candidates during the election campaign?
In the Eastern Townships, the Sherbrooke airport should be extraordinarily well repaired. The Bromont airport should be extended to 9,000 feet, if I am not mistaken. Honourable Members may know that the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) would prefer 10,000 feet, while we might be satisfied with 9,000 feet. However, that was a commitment. What did the Minister say in the course of his non-partisan consultation? He said: Well, we are going to consider the matter. But when those election promises were made, what he had in mind was not consideration but action. Once more we find he is trying to put off the issue, in order perhaps to work on it before the next election, or better still to promise it all over again. However, the people will not be fooled, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister of State for Transport is ill at ease. 1 sympathize with him for realizing that he cannot deliver what was promised to the people in La Prairie, Brome Missisquoi, and Sherbrooke.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps they did not have enough pull with the Minister of Finance, and when this Department did not get its full share, they simply said: Let us announce cutbacks and then we shall make the same promises again; there will be no problem. But this is not what had been promised, and we shall be following with keen interest the actions of the Department of Transport during the coming weeks and months. I am now drawing up a list of all the commitments that were made. Should the memory of the Minister of State for Transport fail him, we will send him a copy of this list and he can then advise us of the dates on which the commitments were met. 1 hope it will be within the next four years, Mr. Speaker! This will certainly run into millions of dollars, but I hope that the Minister will convince his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) to grant him all the funds required. The Minister of State for Finance must also be convinced ... I am certain that also she is ready to let the axe fall.
November 21, 1984

Mr. Speaker, this is the type of situation that we wanted to draw to the attention of this House and this Government to show that, in our opinion, transport is vitally important, expe-cially in Quebec, and that we have no intention of letting the Government dodge the issue during the coming weeks and months by establishing all kinds of committees and task forces allowing it not to honour its commitments.
The motion now under consideration allows us to bring this particular issue to the attention of the people and to make sure that pressure will be exerted in the right places. I know that some bankbenchers are as concerned as we are, about the commitments which were made and that they will help us to put pressure on the Minister of State and the Minister of Transport to deliver once and for all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?

Since there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the next speaker.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I was simply hoping to outwait the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) or his second in command, the Hon. Member for Roberval (Mr. Bouchard), in the hopes that one of them would rise and respond to the motion put by a Member of the Liberal Party.
Before I go any further, I would like to say that I wish the Liberals would at least have the courtesy to blush when they have the nerve and the gall to move a motion involving transportation this soon after the election. Perhaps if they had waited a year or two until memories had gotten shorter, some things might have been forgotten. However, they have the nerve of a tom-cat. They bring in a motion about the cuts made to government programs and the election promises of the Conservative Government regarding the field of transportation.
I was anxious to hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, (Mr. Axworthy), the former Minister of Transport, on this motion. In fact, the motion should have been in his name. Since Liberal Members have that much nerve, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry should have been the one to rise and take the Conservatives to task for doing what he and the Liberals began. In fact, this action began back in 1974 with Otto Lang, of unlamented departure from this place.
Members of the Liberal Opposition should have decided to say nothing at all on this subject for at least a year or two. They should have given Conservative Members a chance to do something different. They chose not to do so. They have presented us with a motion with which we agree.
Let us begin by dealing with all of the talk, promises and speeches of Members of the Conservative Party before and during the federal election campaign. Commitments and pro-
Supply
mises were made. I will not read all of the Conservative press announcements and the notes from the Leader's speeches and the statements of the present Minister of Transport. However, we did hear about research and development. We heard about how the Government was going to increase its commitment to research and development and transcontinental passenger cars. What did we get? We got a cut of $1.9 million in funding for research and development. That is what the Liberals were doing already.


Lloyd Axworthy: We added to it. You are wrong again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They added to it every year and then put it off each year. In fact, my good friend, the Minister of Transport, will recall how frustrated we as members of the Transport Committee were when dealing with Supplementary and Main Estimates. Each year the Liberals had all those items in the estimates and each year the items showed up again. Each year these estimates got transferred. They were transferred year after year after year. It did not matter whether the estimates were for VIA Rail, for airports or for anything else. It took 11 successive years to finally begin the airport expansion in Regina. I have been here while six Ministers of Transport have been in this place. I am a little tired of the same kind of activity being undertaken by all six of them, and that includes the present Minister of Transport.
Another small commitment dealt with VIA Rail. In Toronto on August 27, the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said not only that there would be no cuts to VIA Rail but that there would be an additional $10 million provided for 1985-86, and another $10 million for 1986-87. What did we get? We got a $93 million cut. I suppose one could add it all together and say that that totals $113 million.
That cut will only make things worse for VIA Rail and for rail passenger transportation in the country. The increases that were once proposed by the now Prime Minister, while inadequate, would at least have further advanced the viability of VIA Rail. However, that is down the drain, not only for 1985-86 but for the year after as well.
There is another minor detail, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the Hon. Minister of Transport that we were to get, on an urgent basis, legislation to remove the grain cap. The Prime Minister said on August 27 that there would be an additional $1 million allotted to that for 1985-86.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It would not make any difference.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And an additional $5 million for 1986-87. Of course, with the drought, all those Russian thistles, too much water in the North Saskatchewan, all of those grasshoppers and too many Tories and what not, the entire thing was meaningless. We exceeded the cap in the 1983-84 crop year. The ink on the legislation was hardly dry and we had already exceeded the cap. The Tories saved us from that. We have had a short crop season and the Hon. Minister of Transport could at least bring in a Bill to remove the cap.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sure.

November 21, 1984
Supply


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Bill would require only one page; we are still waiting for it. In fact, we will use the Hon. Minister's amendment made in committee last year. I will put the title on the Bill for him if he wants and I will help him move it. I will second it for him.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will second it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said that he would second it. Who was it that voted down my amendment and the amendment of the Hon. Minister of Transport last September? It was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. The Liberals have a lot of nerve bringing up anything to deal with transportation or grain.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 will hold you to your word.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Okay. Removal of the crap-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Removal of the what?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The removal of the crap on the Government side that took place on September 4. I only hope that we do not have to go through that again with the present Government.
I wish the new Minister of Transport a lot of luck. He is going to need a lot of help from this side because I believe that his colleagues on the cabinet committee, on the committee which is headed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Cabinet as a whole will not be overly sympathetic to the things I know he would like to get done. In fact, his Department has been one of the hardest hit. As I read it, the cuts to his Department amount to $288 million. But I think there has been a dispute, and it has been suggested that they amount to only $282 million. In any event, $282 million was taken from the Department of Transport. All of that is self-defeating. It means that VIA Rail will barely struggle on even longer under the same kind of policy and with the same criteria it had since 1976. Nothing has changed.
The present Minister of Transport will agree with me about how frustrating it was for us when, for six or seven years in a row, three different Ministers made their reports on estimates. All we heard about was the purchase of new passenger locomotives and the purchase of new transcontinental passenger equipment. We got the same thing every year for six years in a row.


Lloyd Axworthy: You got the trains this year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are still not there.


Lloyd Axworthy: Open your eyes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would invite the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to take a train for a change.


Lloyd Axworthy: I did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would invite him to take that transcontinental. I have not yet been able to find a new car on it. That
kind of cutting back and that kind of delay is now being continued.
We are so far behind in this field it makes the whole country feel embarrassed. We used to lead the world. I have been on trains in the United States, Europe and Australia where they have copied the technology which Canada developed. Those countries have new passenger equipment on service. Even British Rail, which does not have very many long hauls, has an overnight sleeping car train which runs from Inverness to London. It puts our trains to shame.
I would like to refer again to something I spoke about last Thursday in my reply to the Throne Speech. Where a debt is acquired or a deficit is enlarged for productive purposes, that debt is self-liquidating. When new equipment is purchased for VIA Rail that new transcontinental equipment would pay for itself within three years in reduced operating and maintenance costs, and increased use by the travelling public. It is a self-liquidating debt. It is an investment, not an increase in the deficit. It is not used to pay off interest charges and other debts. Most of that investment would go into the private sector. It would keep people in Thunder Bay, Trenton and wherever they make railway equipment working, or it would put those people back to work. Certainly, it would put an end to the waste of the millions of dollars which are spent every year by VIA Rail on the maintenance, repair and refurbishing of old passenger train equipment.
The real tragedy is that VIA Rail started off with the deck stacked against it. It was designed to fail. The first thing which VIA Rail faced was having to go to the taxpayers for $77 million or $80 million to reimburse CN and CP for old passenger equipment. At worst, VIA Rail should have bought that equipment for $1 a car. All of the equipment has been depreciated down to zero and written off. The expenses of that depreciation had been deducted from the income tax of the railway. The taxpayers got stuck a second time around. VIA Rail began with that kind of a handicap and nothing has changed. Nothing has changed since Otto Lang started it; his next two successors continued it.
The present Minister could have announced-and maybe he will do it today-the placing of orders. A year and a half lead time is required. Even if the orders are placed today it will be a year and a half to two years before the equipment will be on track. We have waited long enough.
VIA Rail does not need a $93 million cut, it needs $93 million more in investment. That investment would pay for itself within a very few years. If that means increasing the deficit by $93 million, so be it. That money will go into something which the country needs. It will provide jobs, which will put people back to work, and they will again pay income tax.
I would like to speak about the cuts in the CN Marine ferry services on the East Coast. Those of us who have sat on the Standing Committee on Transport for the last 16 years- which includes the Hon. Member for Vegreville and the Hon.
November 21, 1984

Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan)-have had to listen year in and year out to a litany of inadequacy of service, particularly in the ferry services on the East Coast. 1 remember that we boys from the Prairies were fully in support and in sympathy with our colleagues from Atlantic Canada. What did we get? We got a $16.1 million cut.
Being a nice, good Edmonton boy sitting there with that benign and saintly countenance, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree that those ferry services need not be cut, but need to be improved. Any money expended on those services is an essential part of the fair treatment which Canadians should receive, no matter where they live. We must quit discriminating against people because of where they live. The NDP maintains that the ferry services on the East Coast and the West Coast should be treated as part of the highway system. They should be toll-free. The municipalities, the provinces and the federal Government do not charge tolls on the Trans-Canada Highway or other major roads. Surely it is not appropriate to charge for the ferry services.
CN Marine will now be a separate Crown corporation. That might make CNR look better because its deficit will be lower. It might make the CNR happy, but it does not do a thing for marine services in Atlantic Canada. The money will go from one losing operation into a separate losing operation. The Government calls it a cut of $21.5 million. The Government is taking it out of one pocket and throwing it away.
Finally, I want to say to the Minister of Transport that I fully agree with and support many of the points which were announced in Prince Albert, and reiterated by the Prime Minister in Toronto, concerning the Western Grain Stabilization Act. I expect the Minister of Transport to announce within a very few days that he will be implementing what he and his Leader promised-a freeze. They promised a freeze on the western grain freight rates in July and August. At best, that should mean that the freeze should take effect as of August 1 last. They made that promise during the election campaign. The Minister objected when I quoted what he said at the Transport Committee meeting of last September. He said that was not what was promised during the election campaign. I am asking the Minister and his Leader to do what was promised during the campaign. I do not expect the Minister to implement NDP policy but, at best, I do expect him to implement the freeze retroactive to August 1. At worst, I expect him to order the freeze as of today. The rates should revert to what they were on July 31. When the court case is settled, the rates may revert back to what they were on January 1. I would ask the Minister to carry out that commitment on the grain freight rate freeze.
There has been a cut in the rehabilitation of the Prairie branchlines which is part of a $50 million cut. The rehabilitation of those branch lines will be delayed unless the Government intends to renege on its promises and commitments to not only retain, but complete the rehabilitation of the Prairie branchline system. All it is doing is putting it off for another day. I am suspicious, Sir, when things continue to be put off. The next thing you know they are not going to be done.
Supply
I hope the Minister of Transport, or his second in command, will rise and tell us what they are doing to carry out what was said in Prince Albert on July 5, and what was said in Toronto on August 27. If this is going to be implemented, then my colleagues and I will applaud them for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or
comments?


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for some time with interest. I find it amazing that the Hon. Members opposite still believe in the perpetual motion machine. In science there have been two myths thought to be believable, but which have been proved false. One myth is the perpetual motion machine, and the other was advanced by the alchemists of the Middle Ages who spent their time trying to turn base metals into gold. Today there is a modern myth believed by the socialists that somehow with a snap of the finger they will be able to spend all the money they want without any fiscal responsibility. This Government is showing some fiscal responsibility, but these Hon. Members opposite are saying, "Let us not cut back, let us spend, spend, spend".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will say to my hon. friend that all I was asking is that he and his colleagues implement what his Party said they would implement in the coming year and the year after. That is all. I am not asking that they go on any kind of a "socialist spending binge"-in the mind of my hon. friend-I am just asking that they do all of the things for which his colleagues stood in the committee on transport and in this House of Commons, yea, these many years I have been here. If that is a spending binge, then I believe the Conservative Party should now be honest and say to us here in this House, and to the people of Canada, that they have changed their minds about what they told us they would do last July and last August. If they do that, fine. Everyone is entitled to a change of mind. But do not give us the typical Liberal "crap" which we have heard for the last 20 years. Do not promise it and then space it out for another year, another year and yet another year. The Government should make up its mind to do it or not to do it and quit kidding around about it. All we are asking the Government to do is to implement what it said it would do in July and August.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to briefly comment on the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member opposite. The Hon. Member makes particular reference to the fact that he has been around "yea, these many years". We know that he is rapidly becoming an institution of the House. Perhaps it is beginning to show in what he has to say. It is patently apparent, Sir, that there is an absence of reality in what he says. In 1974, the circumstances of the Canadian economy were not quite what they are today. In 1979 and 1980, the circumstances of the Canadian economy were not quite what they are today. Indeed, many things have changed. The only thing which has not changed is the New Democratic Party policy, which is circa 1954. That is where the Hon.

November 21, 1984
Supply
Member's problem is. He is still tied up in the 1950s policy of his Party. When that Party snaps itself out of that element, perhaps it will then understand why this Government has had to take the initiatives it has taken, and perhaps it will understand that we did not know just how bare the cupboard was at the time we were making assurances to Canadians regarding matters we would see initiated.
Those things of which the Minister of Transport spoke over many years in committee and in this House, are a matter of record. They are a part of our policy. I know the Minister of Transport will see that they are fulfilled when the opportunity prevails. However, he is not going to do it for the sake of doing it, for the sake of creating a much greater deficit and denying Canadians the employment opportunities which they so richly deserve and which they have been denied by the actions of the people across the way.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, again may I say to my hon. friend from the Kootenays that I was not asking the Minister or the Government to spend money for the sake of increasing the deficit. I was asking the Government to spend not only the moneys it promised but to spend at least those moneys which would be a sound business investment and which would allow a public need and necessity like rail passenger services or ferry services to function better and more efficiently.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The return on that investment would be recovered within a two, three or four-year period. That is all we are asking, Mr. Speaker. The new passenger equipment will pay for itself within three years. Instead, the Minister of Transport is going to continue on with the policies of his Liberal predecessors and keep forcing VIA Rail to refurbish and frantically try to get by with that old worn out equipment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, no!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And we will have to go through another winter-probably another two or three winters-with the same thing all over again. The Minister has to order the equipment, but it is an investment. It will in subsequent years reduce the amount of subsidy that has to be paid to VIA Rail. I hate to sound like a free enterpriser, but surely that is sound business investment practice. If it happens to raise the deficit by that many millions of dollars more for the next two years or three years, so be it. At least it is a productive investment.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is relevant that another Hon. Member from British Columbia would have previously made this statement. However, in the Province of British Columbia the Social Credit Government has set a precedent for the kind of activity undertaken by the new Government in Ottawa, an activity which has virtually destroyed the economy of the Province of British Columbia. The Social Credit Government made the promise during its election campaign that it was going to practise restraint and revitalize the economy. But there is no province in this country which has been more badly harmed than the Province of British Columbia by the same
kind of activity which this Government is now undertaking.I say to my colleague that the same people who guided the Province of British Columbia on this path of destruction, Patrick Kinsella and Norman Spector, are certainly back here in Ottawa laying a path of destruction for Canada.
I would wonder, Mr. Speaker, about making cuts in transport, an extremely important public utility in this country on which people and businesses of this country depend. Perhaps those cuts should be referred to a committee before they are implemented by the Government? Rather than approaching it from a strictly ideological point of view, perhaps if we could examine the total budget over a period of time with the Department of Transport, we could find the cuts and economies which everyone desires.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would you show up?


Raymond John Skelly: We would also like to see a situation in which the investments which are needed are also put in place. The kinds of promises which were made by that crew over there, and their candidates in the field, should be honoured.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have an opportunity when we are dealing with supplementary estimates to raise the matter of the cuts with the Minister of Transport. I know he will want to appear. British Columbia is nothing more than a prime example of the symptom of the disease. When one reduces the deficit for wrong reasons, one increases unemployment. For anyone to say we must reduce the deficit in order to reduce unemployment has got it backwards. It is not how much the deficit is, but what the deficit is for, and if the deficit is for sound investment for which the Government will receive a full return, whether it is two years or 22 years. If the Government follows this mindless proposition 13 syndrome imported from California which was applied in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, then it will duplicate in spades what happened in British Columbia.


Robert Hylton Brisco: What would you cut?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If I can have another half hour, by unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I can point out some cuts for my hon. friend.
In any event, you cannot have it both ways. When you bring in deficit reductions of this nature, you are going to increase unemployment. It cannot be helped if you follow that route. I suggest adding $ 1 billion or $2 billion more to the deficit now, which will be repaid over the next two or three years, makes far more sense.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You said that five years ago.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You would put people to work, they pay taxes and government gets the money back.
November 21, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak in the House with you in the Chair. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on your appointment, and echo the sentiments of my friend across the way. I wish you well in your lofty position and I know that you will preside over the House in a very dignified fashion.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for presenting the motion today. I regret he is not able to be here and I hope his illness is not serious. I think he will be aware that the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) did a very good job in introducing the substance of the motion. It gives us all an opportunity to discuss transportation issues, and I am very grateful to the Opposition for this opportunity.
I believe, and I think my view is shared by many Members of this House, that transportation is indeed the vital link that binds us together as a nation, both socially and economically. For the Opposition to have chosen transportation for their first allotted day I think is a significant gesture, and indicates the importance they place upon transportation as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But they have a lot of nerve.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I must say, though, that I had hoped I would hear something of a substantive nature, some new initiatives. We waited for initiatives for many, many years from those who are now on that side of the House. We did not really hear anything different today. Nor did we hear anything different from the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have not done it yet, that is why I have to keep repeating it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member for Shefford spent a great deal of time in his speech criticizing us for reviewing and consulting. At the same time the Opposition, every day in the House and outside the House, is harping at us for being too secretive. Well, we are not trying to hide anything. We believe there are some very fundamental decisions to be made. We have to review a number of programs which have been in existence for a number of years and which clearly are not working. We are doing it in an open and consultative way. We do not function as a Government on the basis of issuing edicts from upon high and imposing them upon the Canadian people, such impositions as the savage cuts in VIA Rail passenger service in 1981, the imposition of the National Energy Program, or the methodology used in unilaterally imposing constitutional change on this nation. That really set the nation in a mood of disharmony and bitterness which we are still trying to overcome today. This is a different style of Government and I think that is what the Canadian people voted for. They voted
Supply
for change, a new direction in economic and social policies. They voted for a change in process and for a Government that would listen before it acted. That is precisely what we are trying to do.


Jean-C. Lapierre: How about air safety?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We do not have to take a back seat to anyone on air safety. It was this Government that commissioned the Dubin Inquiry which laid the groundwork for a safer aviation system in this country. We will continue to carry out the recommendations of that inquiry, and not procrastinate and footdrag as the Liberal Government did after the inquiry completed its report.
As I said earlier, the Hon. Member for Regina West has not revealed anything new. He merely dredged up one of his old speeches, added a few items regarding cuts and made a few comments about the Speech from the Throne. He put a few finishing touches on it, and that was about it. We have heard that speech in the House and committee time and time again. Basically his solution is to throw more money at the problem and then turn and walk away. With respect, and I have a lot of respect for my hon. friend, we cannot continue along that same path. When people voted for change on September 4 they voted for genuine change, and we are trying to carry out that mandate.
The substance of this motion is silly, Mr. Speaker. To suggest that we should carry out our election promises within two months is absolutely absurd. Especially so when it is sponsored by the Official Opposition, particularly the Hon. Member for Papineau who spent most of his time as a member of a Cabinet and a Government which broke more promises, imposed more hidden agendas and misled the Canadian people on more occasions than any other Government since Confederation.


Mr. Keeper:: You are neck and neck on that one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, give me a little time. We have only been in office for two months. We are committed to fulfilling our pledges and obligations.
I have to genuinely question the sincerity of this motion, particularly when it was backed up with the kind of hollow, shallow commentary we received from the Hon. Member for Shefford. He talked about savage cuts. Well, it is very interesting to note that the Liberals were going to cut rather significantly the budget of Transport Canada. When the then Prime Minister, now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was looking for ways and means to fund his $307 million election promises, he said that $76 million was going to come from Transport Canada, most of it from VIA Rail. That was part of their hidden agenda as well. It was exposed but we do not hear them talk about it too much any more.
Transport Canada spends roughly $4.3 billion a year and takes in a little over $1.1 billion. That is a $3.2 billion expenditure not covered by revenue. There has been, roughly, a $200 million cut in the expenditures of Transport Canada.

November 21, 1984
Supply
That excludes the transfer of CN Marine to a Crown corporation, at $21.5 million, and disregarding the CN debt, which is an overpayment made by Transport Canada to CN of $46 million. So we are really looking at $200 million. That is less than 5 per cent of total departmental spending. It seems to me that any Government department that cannot improve its revenue expenditure position by less than 5 per cent really is not worth its salt. That is really what is wrong with this country. That is why we are in trouble. That is why the people of Canada rebelled against that Government. They are sick and tired of paying more and more and more and getting less and less and less. They are sick and tired of deficits, mounting debts, and sick and tired of the continual increase in the cost of servicing the debt and the impact that has on the economy. There are also sick and tired of irresponsible government.
Throughout the election campaign we said first and foremost we were going to restore fiscal responsibility to this nation-above all else. We are well on our way. The confidence factor is improving day by day. Throughout the election campaign we did identify several areas in which we believed there were improvements needed in transportation. We did make commitments.
In his speech to the House on November 8 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said:
We are committed to implement these policies within an overall framework of fiscal responsibility over the course of our mandate. And this means that to do more in some areas, we must do less in others.
That is the guiding principle. I can honestly say to the House right here and now that the transportation commitments are not excluded, because we believe that the country needs and deserves an effective, efficient, innovative and reliable transportation system. That is vital to this nation.
Transportation is a vital component to our nation's economy. It is vital in so far as our commitment to economic renewal. It is vital in terms of achieving balanced economic growth. It is vital to providing long-term productive jobs in the country and to our desire to overcome regional economic disparities.
This nation is probably the most transportation dependent nation in the world. We move more tonne miles of freight per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world, and 40 per cent of it is moved by rail. We move a lot of bulk commodities and we move them long distances before they get to tide water. For example, our grain moves on average something in the order of 1,250 miles. Australia, which is one of our major competitors, moves its grain 200 miles. Argentina moves its grain 125 miles and the United States of America moves its grain 700 miles. In terms of coal, British Columbia coal moves an average of 700 miles while U.S. coal moves an average of 300 miles and Australia coal moves less than 50 miles. Therefore, we see that the transportation costs represent a very significant component of the final price of the product that we deliver to tide water. It represents a very important percentage of the value of our export commodities. As a
matter of fact, some 60 per cent of our exports have a transportation cost component of more than 10 per cent.
Given the fact that we are a trading nation and that we must put greater emphasis on expanding our international markets and recapturing our fair share of the international trade, we must ensure that we have a competitive transportation system. We must ensure that we have the lowest net cost possible, because 30 per cent of our gross national product depends on trade. Competition is keen and we all know that we are price-takers and not price-setters. We appreciate the importance of that, and it has been referred to in the economic statement submitted by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
I believe that one of our first challenges is to keep the unit cost of transportation down. We must be innovative. We must employ the latest technology. We must improve our systems and operations. We must achieve better utilization. We must improve the infrastructure where necessary, and we must cut out waste and inefficiency. In short, we must find more effective ways of doing things.
Safety must be held as a high priority. Any transportation system which is not safe is not worth having. We have made a good start. We commissioned the Dubin inquiry and the Grange inquiry when we were in office. A number of very important and major recommendations have flowed from both of those reports. I commend my predecessors for taking action on many of them. There has been some foot-dragging, but many of these things are very costly.
We intend to bring forth a new Aeronautics Act. This Act was being drafted when I was Minister of Transport in 1979 and the work has continued. There will be changes to the Canada Shipping Act. These Acts relate to the matter of safe transportation of goods and people. The regulations with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods are very complex. We are continuing the consultative process with industry and the transportation system. The RAMP system, the new radar system, is going ahead. That represents an investment of something in the order of $800 million. We must strive to improve our total air navigation systems, particularly in the isolated areas in the North. We must beef up our enforcement in the air sector, particularly now with the trend toward a deregulated environment, with the emphasis more on prevention, rather than investigating accidents after the fact. Therefore, there will be a continuing challenge and continuing pressure to put a great deal of emphasis on safety.
Our third challenge, which comes to the point being made by the Member for Regina West, is how to fund and maintain the system. A first class system requires the necessary resources to maintain its stature. Resources are scarce. It is going to require a very frugal allocation of public and private expenditures. Some would suggest that by the end of the century we will have to invest something in excess of $90 billion to $100 billion in the transportation system. We have $10.5 billion invested in the airport transportation system alone just to maintain the status quo. To maintain the system at an up-to-date operating level we require some $450 million annually.
November 21, 1984

I must tell the House in all sincerity that the cost recovery, the expenditure revenue ratio, is on a decline. The cost recovery in the air administration, for example, is 35 per cent. In the marine administration it is 26 per cent. In the surface administration it is 17 per cent; in CN Marine it is 19 per cent; in VIA it is 23 per cent; and in the coastguard it is 1 per cent. I am not suggesting for one minute that we can get 100 per cent cost recovery, nor would I ever strive for that. However, we must try to achieve efficiency, cut out waste, and find ways and means of doing the job more effectively. That is in the interest of the system, the nation, and Canadians as a whole.
The fourth challenge I see, Mr. Speaker, is for us to put in place a legislative and policy framework which will indeed reflect the realities of the 1980s and 1990s and meet the challenges of the 21st century. We have a National Transportation Act that was adopted in 1967. Times were different then. It has served us well, but we are functioning in a new environment. We are going to be charged with the task of responding to the transportation challenges, and of doing so in a flexible framework within which we can ensure that there is maximum opportunity for innovation and flexibility, and ensure that we get the best out of the effort and resources that we put into the system. I think that we will do that.
Canada has always responded to challenge. If there is anything unique about Canada in terms of its ability to address issues, it is that we have consistently resolved the transportation issues which have faced us. We have resolved many of our transportation impediments by working together in our own unique Canadian way. I think we have the expertise, abilities, know-how and technology to continue to stay one step ahead of other nations in transportation. I see this as a very major challenge and one which I look forward to.
I would like to discuss some of the elections commitments we have been talking about. The Liberals and the NDP did not have anything significant to say about transportation. As a matter of fact, I went to the Library of Parliament today to try to find out what was the Liberal and NDP policy on transportation. I drew a blank. On September 31 the Globe and Mail reported that the only Party that had anything to say about transportation was the Progressive Conservative Party. I find that very interesting.
Then I went a little deeper and got the Liberal agricultural policy which had a couple of very interesting commitments. One was that "a new Liberal Government is willing to consider both raising the 31.5 million tonne volume cap and lowering the safety net". The other one was that, as specified in the Western Grain Transportation Act, the federal Government has established a commission of inquiry under Judge Hall which is examining all matters pertaining to the method of payment which would be most conducive to agricultural development in Canada, and that the committee will report before March 31. That is the substance of the Liberal agricultural policy.
Let us go to the NDP. They really shifted during the course of the election campaign. They stood in this House and fought tooth and nail to maintain the Crow. But then they moved an
Supply
amendment which, in effect, cancelled the Crow. This amendment concerned a safety net which in effect nullified the Crow statutory rate. The Hon. Member shakes his head. But at least the NDP are consistent. The position of the NDP during the election campaign was "we will continue to press for restoration of the statutory Crow rate and will fight any further increases in freight rates". That is quite a change. But as I said, at least the NDP are consistent.
1 see that my time has come to an end, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped I would be able to get into some of the other issues such as VIA, the issue of trucking and changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Hopefully I can cover some of those in my responses to questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Minister's speech?


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak today-
An Hon. Member; And comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Excuse me, but the Finance minister should well be aware that in my question I have a certain period of time in which to build up to a crescendo.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I was going to tell the Hon. Minister that I was not going to speak today. I was just going to sit back because I had heard the Hon. Minister was actually a very nice individual and had done his best when he was in opposition to provide constructive criticism. I heard not only the Minister but the former speaker on behalf of his Party state that they were unable to carry out the promises they had made during the election campaign. In his remarks, the Minister made some allusion to the fact that because of the situation and because the cupboard is bare-


Charles Joseph Clark: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -they cannot go ahead and carry out their promises. My question to the minister is this. The Minister and his colleagues were fully aware of the situation leading into this last election. As a matter of fact, he may remember that his leader over-estimated the severity of the deficit situation by some $2 billion, $4 billion, or $6 billion.


An Hon. Member:: Which one?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not Joe Clark, I mean the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He over-estimated the severity of the deficit problem by $2 billion, $4 billion, or $6 billion, depending upon which press report he happened to have read that morning.
Can the Minister tell us what has changed before and after September 4 to prevent you from telling the Canadian people here in the House today in a clear and lucid way just which of the promises you intend to break and which of the promises

November 21, 1984
Supply
you in fact fully expect to carry out? Let us be specific. You accused the Liberal mover of the motion of being a little vacuous in his comments.


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to ask-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have addressed the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I think if you review my comments I have addressed them to the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Could the Minister specify here in the House which of the promises he fully intends to break and which of the promises he intended to break even before he made them on September 4?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am very pleased to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I thought I made it very clear that we intended to fulfil all the election commitments that we made in the area of transportation-


Raymond John Skelly: VIA rail cuts?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -consistent with the comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his statement on November 8.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address two questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in light of the VIA rail cuts. On Vancouver Island the E and N Railroad for years has been trying to get an upgrading and an improvement in the service on that particular railroad. There has been a substantial reduction in bus transportation and the lower end of the highway is not conducive to safe movement of large volumes of goods. Will the Minister indicate what he intends to do for the E and N Railroad?
I would like to suggest to the Minister in terms of cost cutting an improvement in spending. Your subsidy to the coastal ferry system in British Columbia is simply a grant to general revenue in British Columbia. They have destroyed the ferry system on the coast of British Columbia. Would the Minister consider making that grant conditional to service of the small communities up and down the coast of B.C. if we are going to continue to provide a federal subsidy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's part of his question, the issue of the E and N Railway was clearly a subject that will be considered by the rail passenger action force which was established this week. If the Hon. Member had a chance to look at the terms of reference I think he would see that the mandate is to define a basic national railway passenger network. This includes those services to be restored. It is also to review all current services, and among-other things, to define and oversee a new rail
passenger investment program with emphasis on the acquisition of new rolling stock. I hope this answers the Hon. Member for Regina West. It should make him very happy because he has harped about it just as long as I have, and I would have thought he would have been my greatest ally in support of the cut-backs. He has said time and time again that the costing formula is too generous for the railroads; it is a waste of money. We are trying to get at that waste.


Raymond John Skelly: What about the money you are wasting on the ferry service?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I remind Hon. Members that, notwithstanding the $93 million reduction, there is still $600 million being pledged by the Canadian taxpayer to VIA Rail, of which some $200 million plus will be used for capital expenditures. We could have thrown more money at the VIA Rail problem and walked away from it, as the Member has suggested, but we believe it is time to make some fundamental decisions, conduct a thorough examination and try to put VIA Rail on a sound economic footing. We intend as well, to put in place a proper legislative mandate that will ensure that it will continue to work and provide the type of service that will make all Canadians proud. That is what we are really trying to do.


Raymond John Skelly: What about the ferry service? Where's the beef?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry that I took a little longer, but knowing the Member's interest in the rail passenger service I thought he would have been interested.
The grants to general revenues is a point very well taken. I cannot make a commitment at this point in time, but suffice to say that we are examining that particular issue. I know of what the Member speaks, and I think he has a very valid point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the next question to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). A short question and a short answer please.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have three very short questions.
I know the Minister can answer them very quickly. The first one concerns VIA Rail on the northern run from Prince Rupert to Prince George. As the Minister knows it operates three days a week and it is terribly inconvenient to a lot of the small communities. Is there going to be a change in that regard?
My second question is in terms of the northern transportation agreement. I think the Minister is aware that the B.C. Government has cut the Port Hardy to Prince Rupert run to once every two weeks. The B.C. Government has put a totally inadequate vessel on the Prince Rupert to Port Simpson-Kin-colith run. Could the Minister comment on whether or not he is prepared to re-open the agreement which was signed in 1977 by Otto Lang? It is very important that that be renegotiated.
Third in terms of the Prince Rupert elevator, could the Minister comment on the accessibility of grain and boxcars to the old elevator? As I believe the Minister knows, 75 per cent
November 21, 1984

of the jobs from that old elevator are about to be lost some time this month or next month. It is a real black eye, and a sore point for Prince Rupert which expected the new elevator to take on far more than 26 workers, and with a net gain rather than a net loss.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's first question, I would think that with respect to the VIA Rail three days a week passenger service to Prince Rupert, that too will be one of the subjects the rail action force will be looking at. They will be empowered to examine all existing routes and proposed routes. If the Hon. Member has any points of view on that particular run, I would certainly advise him to communicate either directly with me or with the action force. Suffice to say that the mandate of the committee is to ensure that services are provided where there is a need and where the services are well supported. Judging from the comments of the Member, if there is that kind of need we will certainly look at it in a very positive way.
Regarding the other question having to do with the ferry services, that too is somewhat related to the issue raised by the Hon. Member's colleague. I will be meeting with the officials of the British Columbia government to discuss the ferry service issue in that northern region, as well as to discuss the point made by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
On the issue of the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, I share the Hon. Member's concern. I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of the loss of jobs. I had an opportunity to meet with members of the union during the course of the election campaign, at which time I set out to explore whether there were other ways and means by which the existing terminal could be utilized. There has been some demonstrated interest in that. I think there is a way in which that terminal might be used for non-grain services, such as specialty crops, pellets and things of that nature. I will be discussing this with some members of the provincial government, and other interested parties, with a view to attempting to maintain that facility, even on a one-shift basis, to help alleviate some of the problems affecting workers. More important, in the long term we should make sure that we do not close down a facility, something which we may regret later on.

The Hon. Member made the point that it is the only facility which accommodates boxcars. Clearly that is another consideration which should be taken into account. I thank him for drawing the matter to my attention. I am aware of it, and I hope I can count on his support in trying to find a solution.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question. Before the day is over, I presume I will have an opportunity to engage in a somewhat longer discussion about some of the issues raised by the Minister. My specific question relates to the transportation agreement signed with the Province of Manitoba under the Industrial Regional Development Program which included major restoration of the Port of Church-
Supply
ill, major development of new CN grain cars at the Transcona shops and the expansion of Winnipeg, Brandon, Churchill and The Pas airports. The package totalled some $230 million, and it was between the province and the federal Government. It has been on hold, no action has been taken on it. It is causing a high level of uncertainty and anxiety in several parts of the province because much of its economic development is contingent upon the continuation of that program.
Would the Minister be kind enough to tell us whether he intends, as one of the Ministers responsible under this program, to continue with that agreement and the major benefits it brings to the Province of Manitoba?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I should like to indicate that I had an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Transport for Manitoba last week. We discussed in some detail the elements of the subsidiary agreement. There are many aspects on which there is unanimous agreement. Indeed those programs will go ahead. One concerns the development of a light grain car, the rail-bus car prototype project, and there are a number of others. The provincial Minister of Transport indicated that he hoped there would be some negotiated changes in other elements of the program and that they would have to be done on a bilateral basis. We agreed to that. I am to get back to him within a week or so.
Primarily the agreement stands, subject to some modifications which will be negotiated on a bilateral basis. To suggest that the whole matter is stalled is inaccurate. We agreed to give the green light on a number of the points. I could provide the Hon. Member with that information in detail, perhaps in writing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now terminated.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I bestow best wishes on your elevation to such a high and distinguished office in this Chamber.
The motion put by my Party is an attempt to have the Government of the day focus some of its attention on improving the economic plight of the poorer regions of Canada. This appears to be in direct contrast to what the Government is doing. It is attempting to destroy an already weak economy in the poorer regions of the country, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
The general thrust or thesis of the election campaign of the Conservative Government can best be summarized in three words-jobs, jobs and jobs. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) repeated this theme time and time again. In fact, he is on record as saying that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created upon the election of the Conservative Government. This theme of long-term, permanent jobs being created overnight was frequently reiterated by Members of Cabinet and indeed his entire caucus. The message was clear and unequivocal-vote Progressive Conservative and jobs, jobs and jobs will

November 21, 1984
Supply
be created for Canadians seeking new employment opportunities.
This message touched all Canadians. They responded to that request by voting overwhelmingly, unfortunately, for the Progressive Conservative Party in the federal election. Since the creation of employment opportunities was the priority of the Conservative Party, it had a particular significance to various areas of Canada, such as the Atlantic region. It also responded by voting overwhelmingly for the Conservative Party of Canada. This commitment touched the hearts and souls of young people, women, minority groups and Canadians from every walk of life, so much so that those expectations for greater opportunity and new jobs swept the country on September 4 much like a tidal wave.
Canadians believed the Prime Minister's declaration that tens of thousands of new jobs would be created after he assumed office. Canadians trusted that regional development would be increased and many disparities would be corrected. Canadians trusted the Prime Minister to aid the small inshore fishery and to keep his commitments to the energy sector by creating additional opportunities. They also believed that activities and projects which supported the achievement of national defence objectives would be maintained.
Young people trusted the Prime Minister when he said that the Tory Government in its commitments would allow the youth of the country untold opportunities for future employment. Women in the country trusted that the Prime Minister would see to it that equal pay for work of equal value would no longer be an exception but a rule in Canadian life. Thus Canadians gave the Conservative Party a clear and unequivocal mandate to create jobs, jobs and jobs.
Let us not consider just the rhetoric of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) or other Ministers of the Government. Let us look at the facts since they assumed office on September 17. The economic statement totally washed out the priority of jobs, jobs and jobs. At page 6 of that statement is stated that "controlling the deficit must be our priority for this year and for each year of our mandate." The priority has changed from job creation to cutting the deficit. In more than five places in the Throne Speech the key, operative word was "consultation". It indicated that a constant process of conciliation and co-operation must be restored.
What have we had since they assumed office? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced a $4.2 billion cut without any consultation whatsoever with provincial premiers in those areas of the country which it dramatically affects. It is hypocrisy for the Minister of Transport to stand in his place today and talk about consultation when in fact major cuts have been made within his own Department without any consultation.
As many Members know, the Atlantic region is a complex geographical area comprising a number of major islands and peninsulas. Its transportation system is a complicated network; it is not a corridor. Reductions in services and expenditures in Atlantic Canada by the federal Government cut deeper into the socio-economic life of the East Coast than in any other area. Transportation has traditionally been used as a tool for
regional development. Unfortunately, under this Government it is the exact opposite.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) talked about promises. I will quote a promise from a document of the Atlantic caucus of August 2, 1984. It reads:
A Progressive Conservative Government would ensure the continued development and maintenance of reliable and efficient ferry services in the Atlantic Region.
That particular quotation flies in the face of their actions. I can cite a specific example in my own Province, that of the ferry services between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour. What happened there? This Minister of Transport has not consulted with the Premier of the Province or with the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau). He has unilaterally reduced services in that area by six months. So much for the rhetoric of consultation.
My Government recognizes that ferry services are an important ingredient in the economic life in Atlantic Canada. We were to retain a number of services for a period of time, with the Yarmouth-Portland ferry service to be terminated. However, we allotted certain dollars to be allocated to the Yarmouth Bar Harbour ferry services for terminal modifications both in Bar Harbour and Yarmouth, and dredging in Yarmouth was undertaken in 1983 to take account of the upgrading which was needed in that area.
The Premier of our Province wrote some time ago to the former Minister of Transport saying that the Bluenose ferry, which would be travelling from Yarmouth to Bar Harbour, was an important ingredient and that we needed it on a full time basis. The document that was signed by my Government in the Province of Nova Scotia talked about joint consultations on matters of this nature. This is a public document. I quote from the last page:
Both Canada and the Maritime Provinces anticipate that agreement will be reached on future programs and they will consult regularly to that end.
There was no consultation. It was a unilateral move by the Minister of Transport to cut off that particular service. I support the Member of Parliament for Southwest Nova in his attempt to have this rectified by restoring the service back to a 12-month service, because it affects a great deal of Canadians in that area. It will cost Canadians jobs in that area. It will cost jobs in the Atlantic region if that service is not restored to a 12-month service.
I could go on and deal with a number of other areas. However, let me say this. This cut-back in Yarmouth will force fish processors to ship their fish via the ferry from Digby to Saint John, New Brunswick, and truck it to the United States. This will be quite costly. It will place truck drivers in a dangerous situation during icy winter months.
Problems and risk will arise by shipping $300,000 to $400,000 worth of lobsters along the Saint John-New England route. Added to this is the risk of not being able to secure reservations on the Digby-Saint John ferry. The objective in this business is to get the fish to market as quickly as possible.
November 21, 1984

This will cost producers money. They will have to bear the additional transportation time and cost.
Another area of concern to the Atlantic region is the additional cost of ferry services. In one instance the Minister has broken a trust, which was that there would be consultation, and he acted unilaterally. He has broken the agreement that his predecessor signed with the provincial governments by unilaterally raising the fares of ferries in Atlantic Canada by 15 per cent. That means an additional cost to individual passengers. As well, those who are travelling for commercial purposes will face an additional cost.
The Minister of Transport says that we will have to make accommodations, if you will, for those who use the service on a regular basis, but he has not given the details of that information. The situation as it relates to the management centre at the Strait of Canso will result in its being closed, resulting in the loss of at least nine jobs. That is not very important to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) or the Minister of Transport, but it is vitally important to the less prosperous areas of this country.
That is the situation in the field of transportation. This motion states that there are other savage cuts that this Government has implemented. I want to talk about employment. There have been savage cuts in the Department of Employment and Immigration. With regard to employment pension incomes, there has been a $30 million reduction by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Separation payments have been cut by $60 million, which affects Atlantic Canada more than any other area of this country. Employment assistance and entitlement has been cut by $200 million. If one had the philosophy of the Minister of Finance, who says to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians that they are not looking hard enough for a job, one could understand why they would make a cut in excess of $200 million. I say, shame on the government Party for singling out unemployed Canadians, those who are trying to obtain unemployment insurance, and trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of those individuals.
Unemployment insurance payments have been cut by $5.8 million. The mobility program has been cut by $2.8 million. The program delivery services of the Department of Employment and Immigration are being reduced by $1.3 million. Those were the reductions of programs in just one Department.
What about the elimination of programs which affect us in Atlantic Canada and the poor regions of this country? There has been an elimination of the General Industrial Training Program, a cut of $40 million. Can you queue that up with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said during the election campaign about jobs, jobs, jobs? Now we have cuts, cuts, cuts. There will be 50,000 Canadians out of a job because of the Minister of Finance. Surely we cannot trust the Prime Minister or this Government to carry out what they say because they do not mean what they say. They are doing the complete opposite. This affects the lives of all Canadians,
Supply
particularly those Canadians in the less fortunate areas of this country.
With regard to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the "Happy Hacker" talks about a reduction of $175 million. He refuses to give Members of Parliament information as to where those cuts will take place. He does not want to share that information. We put sufficient pressure on him. Now we are to have a briefing, not now but next week. It will probably be postponed again and again.
What about the cuts as they affect the poor regions of this country? The maximum levels of assistance have been reduced by one-half and one-third. The maximum level of assistance under the innovation element has gone down from 75 per cent of eligible project costs to 50 per cent in tier 4 areas. Tier 4 areas are the poorest regions of this country. So much for a compassionate, concerned Tory Government. They laugh. The Tories laugh.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: We are laughing at you.


David Charles Dingwall: Tier I areas, the rich areas, have had the level of assistance reduced by 16 percentage points while tier 4 areas, the poorer areas of this country, have had a reduction as well, not by 16.7 per cent but by 25 per cent. Where is the equity there? It is Tory equity to hurt deliberately those poorer regions of the country.
If one were to look at some tables of expenditures for regional industrial expansion, one would see that from the period July 1983 to March 1984, $38 million was spent in tier 1 while in tier 4, $6 billion was spent. Yet, in his wisdom, the Minister of Finance has indicated that it will be reduced even further than that. If that is Tory compassion for the poorer regions of the country, then I would hate to see the Government deliberately, in a Throne Speech or economic statement, hit us any harder.
The facts are there, Mr. Speaker. There is an instance of government members speaking of jobs, jobs, jobs, whether they be in transportation, employment or through the federal Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
What about the fisheries? Fishermen were told during the election campaign that a Conservative Government would support and maintain the inshore fisheries which are so vital to the Atlantic area. Through the inaction of the Government, expenditures for the fishery sector have been reduced by $11.7 million, with fees for licences being increased by more than $6.3 million.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is not relevant.


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. Members opposite say that that is not really relevant. They have obviously not read the motion, because the motion talks about cuts that the Government has imposed upon the people of Atlantic Canada and the poorer regions of the country.
When we talk about energy-

November 21, 1984
Supply


Mr. Bradley:: Transportation.


David Charles Dingwall: That Hon. Member has not read the motion either. In the field of energy, there was a reduction of $250 million under the Petroleum Incentives Program. Whom will that affect, Mr. Speaker? Will that affect the richer parts of the country? It will directly affect the Provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. So much for the rhetoric of the members of the Conservative Party. Their actions are entirely different.
I could go on to deal with the other sectors of our economy that the Government has hurt so badly. However, transportation has been singled out by the Minister of Transport. We in Atlantic Canada have been assailed by the Tory Government. We in Atlantic Canada have been hit by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We have been devastated by the actions and statements of the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has the gall to say to the people of the poorer regions of the country that government members have compassion for them. However, those cuts will drastically affect those of us in Atlantic Canada.
I would hope that those Members on the back-benches who sit there silently will rise to their feet and, over the heads of the front-benchers, many of whom were put there by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I might add, say that these cuts must stop. They must stop because the Government is taking away from the less fortunate areas of the country and giving to the richer areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I certainly look with some misgivings at what the present Minister is doing in his Department. Perhaps he will be able to clarify his actions for me. However, at this point I do not think that they compare with the complete disaster that the Liberal policies inflicted on the country.
I would like to suggest that perhaps the Hon. Member who just spoke would like to rise and indicate why, if they were so concerned about the remote areas of the country, the previous Minister of Transport and previous Liberal Ministers of Transport would not tangle with the Social Credit Government of British Columbia and insist that its subsidy was conditional on servicing those areas. The previous Liberal Minister of Transport did absolutely nothing. He left them hanging out to dry.
As a matter of fact, all this goes back to a previous Liberal Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, who cut off the subsidies for northland navigation thus detroying the marine transportation system on the coast of British Columbia. If those Ministers were concerned, perhaps they could now stand up in the House and repent for some of their activities.
Perhaps something else that the Hon. Member who just spoke would like to do is to explain why the last Liberal Government almost drove private civil aviation out of business by jacking up airport and fuel costs and insisting on irrational
inspections and licensing conditions. It is like the situation which created the Dubin Commission gone mad. Those things harmed a great many people in the rural and remote areas of Canada. They drove up the cost of living and cut down the availability of transportation.
I could go on and on. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to repent for the previous Government's role in transportation in the country.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to try to respond to a question put by a member of the New Democratic Party. As we know, those members have been in bed with the Conservative Party for some period of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: We know that their life expectancy is very short and that their importance is not as great as they would like it to be. However, the only persons to feed on their egos, of course, are members of the Conservative Party.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the previous Minister of Transport, during his term of office, showed himself to be an individual who not only listened and consulted with the poorer regions of the country, but who also, beyond the shadow of a doubt had compassion.
It should be noted that when the present Prime Minister was the Member of Parliament for Central Nova, he rose in the Chamber to speak about maritime freight rate assistance. It was then that our Government, under the previous Minister, initiated a study with regard to possible cut-backs to that. That study recommended that there should be no cut-backs. At that time, although the Tories and members of the NDP were alluding to the fact that perhaps cut-backs ought to take place, we as a Government and he as a Minister took very concrete and specific action. The previous Minister maintained those subsidies which were so vital to the poorer regions of Canada.
Further, I would like to say to the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, a Member who is always articulate but never really says anything substantive, that this Opposition does not need any lessons and we do not need to hear any rhetoric from members of the New Democratic Party when it comes to compassion and understanding for the less fortunate areas of the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for his speech and for the vigour and enthusiasm with which he delivered it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Too bad he did not give it last year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is too bad he did not give it last year and it is too bad that he did not include in it a few more facts.
The Hon. Member, quite correctly, pointed out that our Party made a commitment to provide reliable and efficient ferry services in the Atlantic region. Would he not agree that the actions that are proposed, such as the provision of three new vessels of the latest state of the art in addition to the
November 21, 1984

Caribou on the gulf service and a new vessel on the coastal service, will constitute to a large extent the fulfilment of the commitment that was made? After all, these vessels are getting older and are outdated. There are newer, faster, more reliable and larger vessels that are capable of providing that service. Perhaps there may be a reduction in the frequency of service, but in terms of achieving an economy of scale and providing the kind of reliable service that I think we all wish to see in that region, would the Hon. Member not agree that that is a very positive step?
Furthermore, would he not agree, given the fact that we have such a tremendous problem in the shipyards of Canada, that this kind of initiative would provide a great deal of relief for the shipbuilding industry in Canada and perhaps provide some hope and optimism for the many hundreds of Canadians who will find jobs in the shipbuilding industry as a result of the construction of these vessels?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Up to $2,000.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the Government House Leader said, it is up to $2,000. I think that has a very positive dimension to it.
With respect to the Yarmouth-Bar Harbour route, if the Hon. Member can tell me how we can effect some cost savings, I would be glad to discuss that with him. However, the fact of the matter is that during the six-month period about which we are talking, that service has generated about 10 per cent of its total revenue. At the same time, it has generated about 45 per cent of its total annual operating expenditure. That results in a loss of some $5 million. I know the Hon. Member will have very clearly thought out his statement. However, 1 would appreciate it if he could tell me how we can bring about the kind of cost saving which is necessary. It is obvious that if the service generates only 10 per cent of its revenue during that period of time, it is not being fully utilized. I think the Hon. Member would agree with that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister asked for my advice and I am pleased that he would seek it. However, as the Hon. Member for South West Nova has stated, there should have been consultations with respect to the reduction of services between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour. To say in one instance that we will have meaningful consultations, and then, unilaterally, to reduce by six months the ferry service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour is totally unacceptable. I am certain that if individuals at the municipal, provincial and federal level were consulted, perhaps an arrangement could have been made whereby the objectives of the Minister of Transport and the individuals who reside in that area could be met.
With respect to his second point, in terms of the new ferries, yes, we appreciate that and we think it is important. However, whether those ferries will be more efficient and reliable remains to be seen. What is important is that he is saying to the people of Yarmouth-Bar Harbour, Saint John-Digby and
Supply
Borden-Cape Tormentine that there will be a 15 per cent increase in the ferry rates. That is what the Minister is saying.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not right.


David Charles Dingwall: If the Minister is not saying that, he should clearly spell out to Canadians and to the users of those services that that will not be the case. It is a complete breach of what the Government promised during the election campaign. But that is typical of Tory policy-say one thing and do the complete opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. I will recognize the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) on debate.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate being given this opportunity to speak in the House for the first time on behalf of the people of the riding of Roberval who elected me and who, I think, would be even more inclined to do so today, considering the approach our Government has taken to a situation created by the previous Government.
First of all, 1 can inform the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that I was unaware there was a second in command with regard to Transport. 1 would put it down to inexperience, but in any case, that is not the position the Prirr; Minister asked me to take.
Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, address my comments more particularly to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who agreed to stand in, at very short notice, for the Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and who did so with remarkable presence of mind. I would like to inform him that his assessment is as considerable as the time he had to prepare it.
I believe that although this Government has been remarkable in doing what it has done in two months, it should not be expected to do more than what the Hon. Member's Government did over a period of twenty years. As far as the tolls on the Champlain Bridge are concerned, I made it clear to the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdonnais) yesterday, that in view of the administrative consistency we are trying to instill in the less than brilliant legacy we have here, that if this country's finances improve, we might be able to review a situation that the Hon. Member's Government did not see fit to change for twenty-five years. Yes, the situation has existed for twenty-five years, and the previous Government did not see fit to change the situation, so I think it would be somewhat pretentious to claim that we can do it in two months. I said it and I say it again, as far as tolls on the Champlain Bridge are concerned, this Government will assess the possibility for taking corrective action, always considering our financial situation.

November 21, 1984
Supply
About the Canadian Aviation Safety Board which is a matter of great concern to my hon. friend, he ought to know that we do not set up investigation offices as a matter of prestige but on the basis of operational needs. The services connected with the Canadian Aviation Safety Board are all located in the National Capital Region. The vast majority of agencies directly concerned are located there as well. The staff already consisted of people working in the region for Transport Canada. For all these reasons, it was and still is preferable to have the office in Hull, and I might remind the Opposition that Hull is located in Quebec, contrary to what I think the newspapers were saying or almost said.
I repeat, this is all part of the new framework we want to give this Government: the administrative consistency that will allow us to keep the promises we made that can be realized within a reasonable length of time, all of which we would have been unable to do if we had not acted to correct a situation that has been deteriorating for so long and which the previous Government should have corrected when it was time to do so.
My hon. friend has been referring constantly to VIA Rail. I might remind him, in connection with these "savage cuts"- quite an eloquent turn of phrase, I might add-that a committee was formed by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to examine the issue of VIA Rail and will be expected to report. I can confirm what I said in Sherbrooke at a meeting where the Hon. Member was not invited, because we assumed that his constituents were very well informed, that they had told him about their concerns, and that the Hon. Member would surely take the trouble to pass their recommendations on to us. In this context, 1 said that I was in favour of restoring the Montreal-Atlantic route, and I want to repeat here in the House that if our present information is confirmed, I will make sure this is done, if it is in my power to do so.
You seem to be very worried about the Crow Rate. I would ask the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) to let us settle our own arguments. They will have their hands full with their own debate on the issue among the Members of the Opposition.
I admit I was somewhat taken aback by the vehemence of the comments made by the Member for Cape Breton-Rich-mond East (Mr. Dingwall). I wonder where he was when the former Government was administering this country. I wonder whether he was part of that Government that managed to accumulate this incredible, astronomical deficit we have now inherited. He should have realized that accumulating deficits could only lead to further expenditures which eventually must be answered for.
When your Government was in power, spending was done in such a haphazard fashion that all services in this country were in danger of being affected. I have been listening very carefully over the past few days to the questions being directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I admit I am rather amazed that people should be surprised at a situation they have done nothing to prevent. The big thing now is the universality of social programs. Unemployment has
been with us for longer than two months, much longer. You people were personally responsible for raising the number of unemployed workers in this country to 1,500,000, and you certainly cannot lay the blame at the doorstep of a Government that has been in power for only two months.
The country's economic situation is incredible, but here again, this did not happen in two months. A Government's financial credibility is not created in two months. It is based on situations that have been going on for years, and the previous Government did not have the political courage to deal with them when it was time to do so. I have the impression, especially since the statement by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that you are really blaming us for having had the political courage to take the action required to deal with unemployment with our own money and not other people's money. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, it may be my inexperience because nine months ago, I was, like most Canadians, watching what the Government was doing and wondering when it was all going to end. Maybe that is why I fail to understand why they did not act far more quickly than we must do now to correct situations that have brought this country to the brink.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I travelled through Quebec, and though it is not typical of the situation in Canada as a whole, I did get a good idea of what Canadians expect of their transport facilities. I appreciate the vision offered earlier by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), and I believe that the expectations of Canadians are along those lines. After realizing the seriousness of our present financial situation, I think we must have, and 1 did so emphatically to my fellow citizens and compatriots, made it clear that the Government had to rethink its expenditure plan, not to make cutbacks but to do what must be done within the transportation network. The needs are considerable and expectations are not necessarily the same. For instance, the Montreal area and the Gaspe do not have the same needs, so our response to those needs cannot be the same in each case, but we will have to respond with the funds at our disposal. In this connection, Quebecers, and I would extrapolate to include all Canadians, are now able to tell the Government they are prepared to support the redeployment of expenditures that is essential if we are to cope with all the needs identified within the transport sector.
I am surprised, in a way, when I analyze the total cutbacks for Transport: $287.1 million. The VIA Rail cuts, for instance, which were so vehemently criticized and commented upon, will be mostly obtained by reducing costs charged to VIA by the other two railway companies, by reducing operating costs, by a new investment strategy and by a new rate strategy. How can anyone say these measures as a whole will result in drastic cuts in service to Canadians? That is just not the case. I said earlier that we would be taking steps to restore the Atlantic service, that is, Montreal-Halifax, and also, if possible, the Toronto-Havelock and Edmonton-Vancouver routes.
Once again, within that structure, I think it is possible to do it, but certainly not in accordance with the financial criteria of the previous government, but rather by keeping in mind the
November 21, 1984

funds at our disposal. It was easy enough to spend money every which way, so much so that they could at least have maintained the services needed by the people. The CN budget has also been reduced by $46.8 million, but that is just a bookeeping measure. For three years now the Auditor General has been asking the government to recover that money which was in fact an overpayment, but no action was taken. Capital projects will be rescheduled and that will enable us to save $51 million, not to mention $23.5 million for transportation services and $34.6 million in air transportation and air cargo taxes. I rather doubt that air travellers will go broke if we raise from 8 to 9 per cent the tax on airplane tickets, which amounts to about $1 or $2. I think the people who use that means of transportation can more easily afford it.
Mr. Speaker, given the current situation after two months, I think I was quite justified in welcoming the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). 1 said earlier that a lot of political courage was and is still required to assume responsibility for setting our financial house in order. Members of the Opposition can say what they like, but we as a party firmly believe, as the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and others have stated, that we will be able to restore the economic climate needed in Canada and to provide the services we are expected to offer.
Mr. Speaker, how easy it is to turn a blind eye to reality, easier still than spending money. The most challenging endeavour is to get some sort of order in our expenditures and to do what the Canadian people have elected us to do. It was on September 4 that we heard the clearest response to our promises and commitments to rationalize public outlays in 1984. That is why we are here and we intend to continue along those lines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Shefford.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have heard the speech of the Minister of State for Transport. In my opinion, his arguments are a distant echo of the remarks made by his colleague the Minister of Finance. But there is one thing which does not sound quite right; he talks about rationalizing, cutting and so on, but if the Minister of State had made that commitment to his electors prior to September 4, he might not have had the same response because Canadians are not stupid, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the summer, before September 4, the Minister of State and his fellow candidates did not say openly to the Canadian people that the axe would fall. That is not what they did. They made every promise imaginable, Mr. Speaker, but as soon as they were in office after resorting to dubious schemes, they made an about-turn and said: Listen, it is worse than we expected. Nobody believes that. Either the current Prime Minister ... He referred to the deficit in his statements, telling Canadians it was huge, even making it worse than it is. So why should the Minister of State for Transport and his colleagues now claim that they are surprised? Surprised by what? That is where the problem lies. It is a problem of credibility when they tell us now that they discovered something which they did not expect and that they are forced to renege on their election promises. That is where
Supply
the government team has a problem of credibility, Mr. Speaker.
For instance, the Air Safety Board. The way the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) sees it, everything must be centralized in Ottawa since everything else is already here. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, the same thing would be true of all government operations. If we follow the reasoning of the Minister of State, all government services would be in Ottawa so there would be no justification for decentralizing. That is it. The government could easily claim that everything had to be centralized in the national capital because it would be cheaper. But is it proper to think that the national capital region alone has the right to benefit from Canadian government jobs and everything that goes with them? That is the question. That would be true and logical if he is talking about a centralizing government in Ottawa. That is where his philosophy and ours differ because, as much as possible, we wanted to spread the benefits of government throughout the country.


An Hon. Member:: It costs more.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Of course it costs more, as the Hon. Member opposite is saying. It costs more, but then should the residents of the Magdalen Islands be relocated? Should the Gaspe region be closed down? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying? That is not the philosophy we advocated as a government. Regional economic development, the potential of the various regions, I think the Minister of State sitting next to him could explain what a region is.
Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (WIO)


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Standing Orders with respect to this time period, it is a time for brief comments, questions and answers so that as many Members as possible can be heard. I would ask the Hon. Member to take that into account.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to recognize the Hon. Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard) in reply to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) may be tired, but he caught absolutely nothing of what I said. What I said was that the choice of an enquiry office which is close to being a court of justice, is not made on the basis of Montreal or Hull, but on the basis of where it is operational. What were the reasons given by his Government for locating such an office in Montreal? I enquired. The answer was: Montreal has the facilities for the air industry. In my humble opinion, the air facilities of a city are not enhanced by the presence of any court of justice. I was told: It is a matter objectiveness. The court must be kept at arm's length from the Department of Transport. Why is that? A court does

November 21, 1984
Supply
not get recognition in terms of its distance from a department. It gets recognition for its expertise, the quality of its finding on the issues that are referred to it. If the court had been in Montreal, would they have said it was not impartial because it was close to Air Canada? That has nothing to do with it. Essentially, my view is that the previous government should have used that same kind of energy in finding the real reasons that could have put people to work. We have a S35 billion deficit, besides those million and a half unemployed. What did that solve? The deficit, in terms of jobs? On this side of the House we have been lambasted for the past two months. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) for a question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions to put to the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard). I am sorry I was not here earlier so as perhaps to have had the opportunity to question the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).
In his remarks, the Minister referred to the cuts in VIA Rail and, quite rightly, pointed out that not all of them were on the capital expenditure side. Some of the cuts are to be made because they are listed in the document produced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I was wondering whether the Minister of State for Transport could give this House any assurances as to the fate of the VIA Rail repair shop scheduled to be located in Winnipeg? Is he able to assure us that that project will go forward?
While he is answering that, he might also comment on whether or not he has been able to take an interest, and if he has not, will he, in the whole question of car inspection, public safety and the plans of the CPR to replace trained car inspectors with people from the running trades?


Benoît Bouchard: In answer to the Hon. Member I would suggest that on the first question, actually, the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) refers to a rescheduling of investments in VIA Rail, and this, we are now considering in that context, also within the terms of reference of the committee created by my hon. colleague. The terms of reference of that committee provide among other things for an assessment of the relevancy of those facilities, and on the basis of the report of the said committee, that is its contents and recommendations, we will take the appropriate course of action.
As far as the Hon. Member's second question is concerned, I would prefer, if I may, that the answer be provided by the Minister of Transport. 1 think he is more at home on that aspect of the question than I am.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question on the VIA Rail cut-backs, particularly the capital expenditure cut-backs. Can the Minister indicate whether that will have any effect on possible future contracts for doubledecker rail cars? Secondly, along the same line, can he indicate what this Government's intention is regarding the development of doubledecker cars for use on VIA?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in line with my earlier answer, the overall consideration of the investment in VIA Rail comes within the terms of reference of the committee set up this week, and the answer to your question could be within the purview of the recommendations that will either be accepted or turned down by the Minister of Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: End of questions and comments.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) here this afternoon because I think they can make good use of many of the remarks I am going to make. These are issues which have affected the northwestern area of British Columbia for a long time.
First, I want to touch on what the Minister had to say regarding the possible joint federal-provincial agreement on the Yellowhead highway. I hope that his remarks this afternoon will apply to Yellowhead 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert. I would like to spend a few moments commenting on a major transportation bottleneck starting to raise its ugly head on the north coast of British Columbia. It arises from an agreement made on April 18, 1977, between Ottawa and Victoria, an agreement which has never really been lived up to by British Columbia. In fact, it has been broken in Clause 4(2), as I will point out in a moment. The docket number is 104897, and it was signed by Mr. Bennett and Mr. Lang some seven years ago now. Clause 4(2) says that the Province agrees that in accepting the subsidy from Canada, as provided herein for ferry and coastal freight and passenger service in British Columbia coastal waters, it will assure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof. I think the background is well known by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), but there is a very appropriate quote taken from a Library of Parliament study I had done some time ago. It says that the reasons for withdrawing the subsidy are cited in the following. Many years ago we had Northland Navigation which had a number of coastal freighters that operated in and out of the smaller coastal communities, out of Prince Rupert and down the coast, and provided both passenger and freight transportation. I think this quotation indicates what the Government of that time thought would occur but of course never did occur. It says:
November 21, 1984

However, Transport Minister Otto Lang followed up by refuting that the withdrawal of the subsidy would either reduce services to northern B.C. communities or distort rates. The decision to lift the aid, he said, was taken after talks with the B.C. Government and various shipping companies in the province had revealed that the services would not be impaired by this action. These companies were interested in expanding their operations in northern B.C. he added. The removal of the subsidy would end what he described as 'present inequities,' and put non-subsidized carrier in better competitive positions to serve these communities.
What has happened, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, is that the service between Prince Rupert and Port Hardy is now going to be cut down to once every two weeks. That means everyone in northwestern British Columbia who wants to go to Vancouver will have to drive 1,000 miles. That is 1,000 miles back and forth, particularly in the winter when the new twice a month scheduling is going to come in. In fact, as my colleague from Comox-Powell River knows very well, it eliminates regular ferry routing in and out of the community of Bella Bella and the linkage of course to Bella Coola and other communities.
We, and the Minister of Transport, have to look carefully at what the Alaskans are doing. They are bringing their state ferry service down into Hyder, a community of 200 on the north coast of British Columbia. They have recognized the economic viability of bringing their ferry service in to allow loopings for transport. I am glad to see the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) here because it is important that he be involved in studying how this agreement, signed by Canada and the Province of British Columbia, should be renegotiated. We should have looping ferry service going from Stewart to Kincolith to Port Simpson and back into Prince Rupert. We should maintain the barge service which regularly goes from Prince Rupert to Masset, providing an opportunity for propane and other commodities to be moved without having to have the driver and the tractor on board. You can put a drop trailor on and move it to the Queen Charlotte Islands. We must also maintain the regular passenger service between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands.
The federal Government, through this agreement, has now given over $70 million to Bill Bennett. Bill Bennett is shuffling that money into general revenues. This year, in excess of $14 million goes to the Province of B.C. The B.C. Government is on the record as saying that the whole cost, including depreciation on the vessels, salaries, and everything you can imagine, is $10 million. They are actually making a net benefit. Ottawa now pays entirely for the north coast service, and Bennett takes a $4 million cut and puts that into south coast services.
If a community like Hyder with 200 people can have the Alaska state ferry service regularly, why cannot a community like Stewart, with 2,000 people, be hooked into the system? Other smaller communities could be hooked into the system. The little passenger vessels from Port Rupert out of Port Simpson and Kincolith are unsafe. I can say quite honestly in the House that I fear there will be drownings. That vessel is not large enough. We have just lost a number of lives. It is
Supply
endangering the lives of those people who must take those routes.
I know the Minister is seriously interested in this. He said earlier today that he is going to be meeting with officials in B.C. to deal with it. The clause of which the Minister should make use from docket 104897 is Clause 4(2). The Province of British Columbia is simply not living up to the original agreement, and that contract and clause can and should be reopened for negotiation.
My second point is in terms of VIA Rail. As the Minister knows, we have seen an erosion over a number of years to the point where now fewer and fewer people take VIA Rail from Prince Rupert to small communities such as Usk or Cedarvale. There is really no other way either for freight or for passengers to get in and out of those communities. It is a real, identifiable need. However, it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you downgrade the service and make it less accessible, people will find other ways. If one can only catch the train Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, and one wants to buy groceries on Wednesdays, one must find some other way. Over time, the number of people using the service naturally declines. Then VIA can say that this route no longer has the kind of passenger utilization that makes it a viable service. That, of course, leads to greater and greater cuts.
I received a letter in March of this year from the Minister's Department saying that, because of Expo '86, the new prototype equipment may well be identified for use on the Prince George to Prince Rupert run. That is one of the most beautiful areas of the country. It has great potential for hooking into the kind of offshore tourist traffic that we have historically seen in Banff and Jasper. We could get the type of routings which would allow people to take circle tours. They could take VIA to Prince Rupert, whether from Edmonton or from Montreal. Having arrived there, they could take the Alaska state ferry service or the B.C. coastal ferry service. All of these services are interlinked. As one part of the over-all transport sector erodes, we lose the opportunity to upgrade other parts of that sector to bring more growth and tourists to northern British Columbia, an area which has been identified by many studies as having great potential in that respect.
My third point this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the Prince Rupert elevator. The Minister of Transport has already responded to the subject today, but I would like to give a very brief overview of what has happened in Prince Rupert. In 1979, the Minister signed what I believe he felt in good faith was a very good agreement. Ultimately, the people of Canada put about $30 million into the infrastructure costs at Wrigley Island for the new grain elevator, which is now very near completion. However, Prince Rupert Grain I has a very unique ability to load very rapidly a lot of the small Pacific Rim freighters that come in. TThat is not to say that the new elevator cannot do that. That is a very popular route for vessels from China and a lot of other Pacific Rim countries. That is not a state of the art elevator, but it can unload boxcars. In recent years it has set records, year after year, moving more than 1 million metric tonnes at a time. Last year it moved 15

November 21, 1984
Supply
per cent of the West Coast grain that was moved out of this country.
I am glad to see the Minister conferring with the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). I am also glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) listening. This is important.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is more attention than you have ever had.


James Ross Fulton: In 1979, the Wheat Board identified $600 million in lost offshore sales because of bottlenecks in our grain system.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We fixed that.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. The Minister did a good job. The Prime Minister should know that. The only Tory who could ever get elected in Prince Rupert is the Minister of Transport, but fortunately he is going to stay in Vegreville.
That same year, as the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board will know, $100 million in surge capacity was identified as needed for Prince Rupert. That money was starting to be put in place. I agree that the potential for the old elevator for surge capacity is limited. The Minister has already written to me about that and I recognize it. However, there is a real social and export need in terms of the good faith of the people of Prince Rupert. They did not expect to lose any jobs out of this. They expected to gain some. As it stands now, of the 100 grain jobs in Prince Rupert, we lose 75. That is a net loss of about $6 million a year to the City of Prince Rupert. To a small community, that is a huge loss. To small business the roll-over dollars are very high. For about $25 million the docking and galleries can be repaired. That would not make it a state of the art elevator, but it would be a good functioning system.
Farmers make 30 cents more a bushel shipping out of Prince Rupert. Small freighters save 500 navigation miles each way sailing from Prince Rupert to the Orient rather than from Vancouver. The Orient is very rapidly becoming our principal trade partner in terms of grain movement. Therefore, there are good, sound reasons why this elevator should remain open, hopefully with two shifts, maybe with three. I see the Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board smiling. 1 know they are going to move on it very soon. We have got it. That is good.


Mr. Mayer:: I did not say that. You were just getting to the best point to be made. Keep going.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. We can move some pelletized material. We can move some alfalfa and some of those more exotic feed stocks through there. I still think-and I think the Ministers will agree if they look at the 1979 report of the Wheat Board-that there is potential to keep it going. The Tories believe in competition. It may well be that Prince Rupert would be better off with some competition. I may not want Cargill or some of the other heavies in there, but needless
to say, I do not think the consortium has a gilt-edged requirement for having a monopoly on the part of Prince Rupert in terms of grain sales and movement.
The federal Government used to own that elevator. I must remind the Minister of Transport that he gave it to the corsortium for a buck. That is a pretty good deal for a $50 million elevator. Prince Rupert lost 75 jobs out of the deal. I know that the Minister will deal with it expeditiously.
My fourth point is with regard to the Digby Island airport. When you buy a ticket from CP Air that says you are going to Prince Rupert, you land on an island in the middle of the Hecate Strait. You get off to find there is nothing there and you wait for half an hour. You get on a privately operated bus on Transport Canada land. You drive down to a landing wharf operated by the Port of Prince Rupert. You then get on a ferry owned by the city, and the driver comes around and is forced, because of corporate regulations, to extort $6 from you. You have flown on that plane supposedly to go to Prince Rupert but you have to go through all this hassle.
I think the Minister of Transport needs to look at the brilliant options I have brought forward, such as for Transport Canada to operate some kind of hovercraft or ferry system that could be used for search and rescue. That is one module option. The other option, with the possibility of the LNG at Port Simpson, is for the Minister to move some money for the connection of Digby Island on to the peninsula and back across the Rapids and into the City of Prince Rupert. These are options that are not too expensive and would provide for greater and easier access between the city and Digby Island. Things are coming to a crunch. The ferry is wearing out. People's patience is getting thin. Every year when we use the system it has gone up another buck. Pretty soon it will be $200 to fly from Prince Rupert to Vancouver and $300 to take the ferry.


Mr. Forrestall:: We may never see you again.


James Ross Fulton: We need to move on this. I know the Department of Transport has a responsibility in terms of finding some options and participating with the City of Prince Rupert, the Province of B.C., and some of the industries that are planning on coming into the area, so that we can get it off the ground.
Now let me deal with airports. Let me name some of the airports I have to fly in and out of, such as Sandspit, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers, Watson Lake and Whitehorse. All these require some kind of additional navigational aids. Terrace is the most dangerous right now in that the number of days when jets cannot land there is very very high compared with any other airport in Canada. It is very important in terms of safety that there be additional navigational aids. The Sandspit airport and the Watson Lake airport are just long enough for Boeing-737 landings. The Prince Rupert airport is a large airport. It does not have great difficulties with navigational aid problems. Certainly Smithers, Terrace, Sandspit and Watson Lake require upgrading.
November 21, 1984

Next is search and rescue. The Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence are hopefully going to provide fairly shortly two new 400-class cutters, one for the Queen Charlottes and one to operate out of Bella Bella. I am sure the Minister is aware of the most recent loss of life, which was partly tied into a complex jungle of mistakes that occurred as a result of weather reporting systems, some of which were off the air and some of which were not reporting fully. One can only surmise from talking to a lot of fishermen who knew the fishermen who drowned that some of them were among the most careful fishermen that ever cruised the coast of British Columbia and who would never have gone out in the kinds of wind and weather that occurred. I know the need is there for a couple of 400-class cutters, particularly for the Hecate Strait, to a certain extent the Dixon entrance and the west coast of the Charlottes, but also going down into the Queen Charlotte Sound. There is a real, identified need for that size and class of vessel. The "123" operating out of Prince Rupert cannot go out in anything other than a light chop. The Derby is large enough to go out.
There is also the potential for the early signing of an agreement with the State of Alaska to combine our helicopter efforts by moving a helicopter from Comox either to Masset, where we have a DND base and from where a helicopter could operate, or out of Prince Rupert. Again we have some search capacity with Buffaloes and other fixed-wing aircraft. But what we really require is rescue capacity. We require helicopter rescue capacity. Most recently, George MacDonald, head of the Museum of Man in Ottawa, was rescued by the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard helicopters came and lifted the people out of the water before they drowned. In almost all situations now in the Dixon Entrance, the Hecate Strait and on the west coast of the Charlottes we rely upon the Americans. I think it is about time we moved one of those five choppers from Vancouver Island on to the north coast. This is identified in various transport reports and recommendations. At the same time we should rubberize and upgrade the Coast Guard helicopter that operates out of Prince Rupert which is not now able to rescue but is simply capable of search capacity.
I think I have covered a few things in terms of transport. I notice there is a little time left to me. I would like for a moment to come back to the question of marine transport. I think the Minister, in seizing himself of this matter in the next week or so, needs to know how to deal with Alex Fraser and Mr. Bennett on this issue. It is a long-festering one and one that I think has a solution. You cannot base the statutory mileage rate from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, which is what the subsidizing formula is based on, and say that you can still consider it a highway if it operates only once every two weeks. It is a damn poor highway if that happens. If you closed the highway between here and Toronto and had it open only once every two weeks, it would not be much of a highway. We have to use that same argument with the Government in Victoria, that if the formula is based on statute miles between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert, then you have to operate it as a
Supply
highway linkage. Rather than forcing people to drive one thousand miles from Prince Rupert to Vancouver under very treacherous conditions, people should have access to that highway both for freight and for safe passenger movement. We should have a vessel moving out of Prince Rupert that links Kitimat to Prince Rupert to Kincolith to Port Simpson and to Stewart so we can get those little circles of tourist and localized movement that is safer than the kind of operation we now have. I am thinking particularly of the vessel now on the Prince Rupert-Port Simpson-Kincolith run which is totally inadequate. The previous vessel was barely adequate. This one is endangering lives. If the Government in Victoria proceeds to cut the Masset to Prince Rupert barge service, it will mean all of the explosives, propane and so on, will have to be put on the dedicated passenger run between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes, and the whole system will have to be cleaned up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear questions and comments now.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that my colleague has experienced a number of problems with civil aviation. I would like to run through a couple. Would the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) be prepared to indicate that he is hearing these problems from people in the riding and indicate that he would like to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) do something about them?
First is the example of the Dubin Commission gone mad. I am sure the Hon. Member for Skeena has had cases where RCMP officers in pursuit of the objectives of the Dubin report go to the local airport and check to see whether a pilot who has just come in has his log book. The individual ends up being fined $100 because he does not have the journey log book in the aircraft or he does not happen to have his pilot's licence on him. Fines are occurring in situations where the Dubin Commission has gone mad.
The Hon. Member might also have had a second situation where requirements for instructors at flying schools in his riding have been boosted to the point where they are not quite sure whether they should give the students 40, 50, or 60 hours, because they, the instructors, may wind up losing their licences or having them downgraded. The largest number of accidents in the flying business happen in the private sector from continued flight in bad weather. They have absolutely nothing or very little to do that can be demonstrated with additional serious upgrading of instruction. Maybe the Hon. Member could comment on that.


James Ross Fulton: I will try to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) knows that I spend a great deal of my time flying around in Beavers, Otters, Geese, and various other kinds of aircraft. 1 am abundantly aware of the difficulties that pilots, private and commercial, are running into as a result of the bureaucratization within the aviation industry. I agree with the Hon. Member that there needs to be some big scissors taken to the kind of bureaucracy that is applied to many commercial and private fliers. At the same time, it is very appropriate that the

November 21, 1984
Supply
Minister should look carefully at how to ensure that state of the art safety procedures are in place. I think all aircraft, both private and public, should carry ELTs. It is a very important step which has to be taken. I am thinking in terms of places such as Dease Lake. The federal Department of Transport should put forward the very limited number of dollars required to install directional aid beacons that provide return signals for aircraft, such as the one I was on during the election campaign. We got lost flying over the Tuya River, trying to fly from Dease Lake to Atlin. We just simply flew into a cloud, not knowing where we would come out. There are positive steps in terms of safety which the Department of Transport can take. However, providing more bureaucracy for private and commercial fliers is not really the way to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance because I think there is something in the tradition that once one has been defrocked, one should not write about what went on in the seminary. However, I should like to follow the example of my successor who maintained his continuing interest in the area of transportation.
This resolution is targeted at a very important question, that is, the impact of very severe and destructive transportation cuts on regional economic growth and development in the country. We have seen time and time again total insensitivity on the part of Conservative speakers to that fundamental issue. They have decided en masse, as if there were some kind of large Kool-Aid tank in Georgetown from which they are all drinking, to worship at the shrine of the deficit cut. It has been raised to the level of theology. It has become a matter of utmost and critical importance to them, almost as if the search for the Holy Grail was insignificant compared with this great magical search for the deficit cut, as if all will be solved by reducing the deficit.
The fact that this is challenged by a number of quite sound economic analysts does not seem to bother them very much. In their haste to cut the deficit, they are reaching into programs which are of vital importance to a wide variety of cities, towns and regions throughout Canada. This totally escapes them. They are so totally preoccupied with the kind of theology we have heard, that they are prepared to sacrifice the economic security, stability and potential of Atlantic Canada, the northern regions of Canada and western Canada.
I want to talk particularly about my own region. The best way to express what westerners think of the position taken by the new Government, which they rewarded with a great deal of election trust-and there is no doubt about it-would be to quote from an editorial appearing in the Manitoba Co-operator, which represents the largest number of farmers in the Province of Manitoba. The November 8 edition contained a blank message which read, "Dear Brian: Just thought we would drop a note to you and your Members of Cabinet to say
thanks for nothing". It continued in the same vein to say that westerners placed a certain amount of trust in the promises and commitments of the Government and looked vainly in the Throne Speech for some indication that those promises would be fulfilled. As the editorial said, they came up with nothing. There was nothing to respond to their needs. There was nothing directed toward them. Perhaps the greatest disappointment was in the area of transportation, the area where in some ways the most grand and eloquent promises were made. They were to freeze the rates. It is now November 21, and we have not seen hide nor hair nor sign of any indication that the Government is prepared to make any move in areas affecting the interests of farmers as they were promised by the Conservative Party. I am not saying that they were right, but that was their promise. If we begin to wonder why at times people become somewhat cynical, I think we have to look at the fact that a bald-faced, straightforward commitment was made in the famous Prince Albert statement. People have been looking in vain somewhere in the nooks and crannies of the various speeches, yet all they have heard is the Gregorian chant of Members of Parliament saying, "We must cut the deficit". That is their only answer to all that ails the world.


An Hon. Member:: What is your answer?


Lloyd Axworthy: We have answers and we will talk about them. In fact, we had answers, many of which have now been put on hold, have been frozen, are under study or under review. If they had been allowed to go ahead, they would have had the kind of economic impact about which we are talking.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member wants to read the Prince Albert statement, he will realize that several things have been fulfilled already, and we have barely been in office two months. If he wants to talk about what went on in Prince Albert, he should read the full statement. Let us get some balance into what is being said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Minister that that is debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: When and if the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) is prepared to make a speech in the House, we will be glad to respond to him. Other than that, I think he should desist from using points of orders for frivolous reasons. That is what he was just doing. It was not a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: And he should not be so sensitive.


Charles James Mayer: If the Hon. Member is suggesting that he is prepared to give up his time so that I can make a speech, I would be more than happy to accommodate him. If that is what he is saying, I would be more than happy to do it right now.


Lloyd Axworthy: Obviously the Hon. Minister is as effective at getting his name on a list as he is at defending the interests
November 21, 1984

of Manitoba in Cabinet. It also amounts to nothing, as the editorial indicated.
Let us return to the point under discussion. We have not heard much about transportation other than from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). However, we have heard a lot about deficit cutting.
We have only 14 minutes remaining and there are many other areas which I would like to cover, but I should like to indicate that we in western Canada have been awaiting with some expectation an indication from the Government as to when it intends to bring forward legislation dealing with the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, so that $400 million or $500 million of necessary funds will be put into the hands of farmers within the next weeks or months. My Party has promised that it will be committed to letting that legislation go through within one day if the Government would only take some initiative and do it. However, we have heard nothing from them.


Charles James Mayer: You were in power for four years and you did nothing.


Lloyd Axworthy: I think the Hon. Member should try to get to Cabinet meetings more often to put his proposals on the table. He should not be spending all his time stargazing with commissioners from the Canadian Wheat Board and causing problems out there. Why does he not get back to Cabinet and do something useful? We are awaiting a stabilization fund. Farmers and western Canadians are waiting for it, yet the Minister of State for Canadian Wheat Board is travelling around and speculating about agriculture in the year 4000.


Charles James Mayer: What did you do when you were Minister? You showed how much you knew about farming. You did not know the front end from the back end of a plough.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope you bring the Minister to order. He should learn, if he is going to be a Minister of the Crown, not to be too sensitive.


An Hon. Member:: When you were insensitive you ended up with 40 Members.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, we have them riled up now. I hear them baying, cackling, groaning and moaning. They do not like to have their unfulfilled promises thrown back at them. They recognize that every minute, hour and day which goes by there is another Canadian saying, "There goes another promise down the drain which they cannot fulfil and will never fulfil". That is the problem with Conservatives. They are seeing their promises falling like autumn leaves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 should like to continue with the discussion of transportation, if I might. The fact of the matter is that we must also look at the kinds of initiatives in transportation which were under way. I will talk about VIA Rail for a
Supply
moment. A great deal has been said about it this afternoon. What have we actually received?


J. Michael Forrestall: Let's talk about it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us deal in factual terms. We have had the setting up of another task force to study the problem, and a $93 million cut. That is the sum total of actions on the part of the Government in terms of VIA Rail. What was under way already was a major capital project, which committed $200 million over a five-year period to the modernization and re-equipping of VIA Rail. That was put on hold, that is the unstated message. We had already committed money to the establishment of four maintenance bases in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. We know why they would not stop the one in Toronto; we know where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is from. The reason why those maintenance bases were absolutely essential to the modernization of VIA Rail was that that was the way to bring down substantially the maintenance costs, which occupy about 40 per cent of the operating cost of VIA Rail. Those maintenance bases were already contracted and under way. This Government has put them in the deep freeze. As a result, the ability of VIA Rail to save substantial amounts of money on its operating budget have thereby been frustrated until we get to the commission's study.
That was not something that had to be frozen or held. It was a clear-cut investment in modernization to bring about a substantial reduction in the cost to the taxpayer. The Minister of Finance talks about bringing the cost of Government down, but what does he do? His Minister of Transport takes an action that will keep the cost way up. Do you call that good economics? Of all those new back-benchers who have come here waiting to save the world I ask whether cancelling an investment that will save money on operating costs is good economics.
We also talked about new equipment. The Minister of Transport might be good enough to confirm this because he has seen the document. Under way already was a plan to provide new locomotives for the Atlantic region. That has been put on hold. There was a plan to convert all the cars on the Atlantic track region to electrical upgrading. That was a commitment-


J. Michael Forrestall: That was pie in the sky, and you know it.


Lloyd Axworthy: That was no pie in the sky. It was part of the capital budget of VIA Rail. I challenge the Member opposite and the Minister to show that that was pie in the sky. That was part of the capital budget of VIA Rail until it was put on hold by this Minister of Transport.


J. Michael Forrestall: For what year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Beginning this year. In addition, we had reintroduced the new service between Winnipeg and Edmonton. We had made a commitment and a decision on the

November 21, 1984
Supply
reintroduction of the route between Edmonton and Vancouver. To provide for new equipment on that, we had leased new Amtrak trains, which are presently on the tracks operating between Winnipeg and Edmonton. I invite the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to ride on it some time. That is the way of testing the application, of developing new equipment under contract with Bombardier on which construction can start next year. I do not know where that is going. I strongly recommend to Members opposite who are vitally interested in the future of VIA Rail that they get to their Minister of Transport at the first opportunity in caucus and ask him to go ahead with the Amtrak experiment to see whether it is valid, then purchase the cars and get them on the track. That was already under way.
Furthermore, we had committed a major investment to the Cancar factory in the Thunder Bay constituency so that Canada will develop its own technology for short trains. We had an agreement between Bombardier and Cancar to develop that new research and development at the Thunder Bay plant so that we would have a new form of Canadian-made trains under development. That has been put on hold.
They cannot get up in this House and say, "We are the Party of progress", when decisions that have already been initiated have been put in the deep freeze, put on hold. There is nothing wrong with another action committee to study it. That is okay, but why frustrate initiatives already under way? Why delay? Why put back? Why retard? What is the value of that, especially when it comes to the vital question which every Conservative Member has spoken about, the need to get costs down? That was the intended purpose, to bring costs down.
Let me move to a different subject, the whole question of how we stimulate growth and competition. I agree with the Minister of Transport. Every Minister of Transport has said that the transport of people and goods is vital to the economic health of this country. There is no question that what is very important is that we establish a way of getting higher levels of productivity and lower costs.
To initiate that, last year we introduced a new airline policy to deregulate the airlines, to bring new competition into the system and to provide higher levels of productivity. From every statement that I have read, the Minister of Transport has agreed to go along with that policy. He is in agreement with the thrust of that airline policy which we established last year. I will take him at his word.
What disturbs me is that last year we had also started the deregulation of the trucking industry. We had unanimous agreement with all the provinces at a federal-provincial conference last spring. Every single province agreed that we undertake major changes and reforms in trucking regulations to change the onus of proof so there would not be that ability to frustrate any regulatory change. We had instructed public servants to prepare a plan of action that was to come before a meeting on September 15, where it would be ratified and the new regulations could be put in place.
What happened? The meeting of September 15 has come and gone. All we have, to quote from my friends in the
Manitoba Co-Operator, is nothing. We had made a decision. We had an agreement from the provinces. We had developed a system that would have substantially brought down the costs of interprovincial and intercontinental trucking. In its economic statement, this Government lauded the concept of deregulation and more competition. However, it has put on hold a decision that had already been negotiated and arrived at and was already to be implemented.
How do you decide whether this Government is serious in its commitment to the Canadian poeple or economic reform and adjustment when it already had a ready-made package handed to it? It was a gift to them, something they could have put into place right away. For reasons that maybe are academic preoccupations, they have to restudy everything. They have put it on hold. As a result, I am afraid that it will become unravelled. We will find that the agreement we have already received will not be implemented. We will have set the clock backwards in enabling the federal and provincial governments to undertake an effective form of cost reduction at higher levels of productivity.
Some of my colleagues have pointed out that we want to improve our export capability and our cost performance by reducing the cost of transportation. That is a very laudable, very important, objective. What has this Government done in its economic statement? It has added close to $700 million in hidden taxation, mostly on the backs of small business people and particularly in the realm of transportation. While we were attempting to get costs down through deregulation, the Minister of Transport has added substantially to the user costs in our airports. He has brought in airport fees and is now talking about imposing fees on the transportation of cargo.
That is a good bureaucratic answer, but what really amazes me is that when the Minister of Transport was occupying the role of critic on this side of the House, in fact as recently as three months ago, he was arguing for a major change in airport pricing so that we could start decentralizing the ownership and control of airports. That was an important objective.
What does he do instead? He raises the cost. As a result, he is going to provide a countervailing force to the dergulatory impact that we have by increasing costs both to the passenger and to the cargo user.
By what form of logic does a government that is attempting to bring about a transportation system, which is a service industry to enable passengers and shippers to move quicker and faster and at lower costs and therefore expand the marketability, increase the cost of transportation by adding a user fee? That is not good economic sense.
Once again we are filled with a series of contradictions, wrapped in an enigma, all sort of bubbled up in a pile of rhetoric about the great new economic revolution that the Conservative Party is about to perpetrate upon the Canadian people. Instead, they are victimizing them. They are adding to their costs. They are providing a dampening effect on the ability of the business community to have lower cost transportation and, therefore, providing a reduction of growth, not an enhancement of growth.
November 21, 1984

That is the kind of economic analysis that Members opposite should apply, rather than simply standing in Pavlovian fashion worshipping at the Minister of Finance's icon that deficit cutting is the only thing that counts. They should peruse that document and realize that there are substantial fallacies in their economic analysis. Nowhere is that more important and more clear than in the area of transportation.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11). Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock p.m. the House adjourned.

Thursday, November 22, 1984