1984-04-06

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, the Thursday, April 5, edition of The Globe and Mail has revealed the court decision which found Imperial Oil Limited guilty of unfair dealings with independent retailers of gasoline in its efforts to keep the price of gasoline artificially high. It reported: "Judge James Trotter had reserved his decision following Imperial's recent one-week trial on a charge under the Combines Investigations Act of discriminating against the company because of its low pricing policies."
This is no different from the case in Peterborough, Ontario, where the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, has literally forced an independent retailer to sell off eight service stations because of Petro-Canada's refusal to sell him petroleum products at the same discounted figure it sells to its company-operated service stations in the same market area.
Petro-Canada was selling gas during the week of March 26 at 37.9 cents a litre, yet it was charging Mr. Grant Seabrooke, President of Seabrooke Motors Limited, 40 cents a litre wholesale. The result was to cut off supply by allowing its own company operations to sell for less than it was willing to sell to Mr. Seabrooke. Grant Seabrooke's retail outlets are now being sold because they can no longer compete against Canada's own state-owned oil company, Petro-Canada.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, for some time now the Opposition has been expressing its indignation about certain practices of Revenue Canada. It seems my hon. friends opposite have nothing better to do than dig up a thousand and one things our tax employees have done wrong. This little exercise in denunciation, which is running out of steam and has failed to come up with any new ideas, has
always been partial, in every sense of the word. The Progressive Conservative Party, blinkered by its extreme partisanship, has a very twisted view of the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the real situation is quite different. A constituent of mine in Greenfield Park wrote to me recently that officers at the St. Hubert and Shawinigan office had been extremely polite and very helpful, and that they had no trouble finding a solution that turned out to be very satisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, this proves one must always look at the other side of the facts, a side the Members opposite may not always be anxious to see.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government does not represent Canada. In 1968, when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first came to power, there were 27 Liberal MPs from the four western provinces; today there are two. In one year the Prime Minister spent 38 days in the eastern hemisphere. During the same time he spent five days in western Canada, three of which were to go skiing.
There are four major issues which highlight western concerns: energy, agriculture, transportation, and tourism. The Liberal attack on western transportation has yielded a system farmers cannot afford. Their attack on energy was to lay central claim to a provincial resource. Their removal of VIA Rail service from Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Jasper, and Vancouver has negatively impacted on our tourist industry.
[DOT] (U 10)
What was left to be abused? Only agriculture. So the Prime Minister denies western farmers the opportunity to get back $1 billion of their own money from the western grain stabilization plan. To get the farmers' money back, the Opposition Parties would have to agree to close their eyes to democracy and pass, without question, a doubtful list of legislation.
There are 21 Members of Parliament from the Province of Alberta. Today there are 20 Liberal members of Parliament from eight Provinces and two Territories. All the rest come from Quebec and Ontario. This is not a national Government. It is a regional Government. The Prime Minister insults, aggravates, and pirouettes with his silly Order Paper.

April 6, 1984


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, when the NDP Government in Manitoba was elected in 1981 the rate of unemployment in Manitoba was higher than that of Saskatchewan and Alberta, thanks to the Tory economic policies of the provincial Government that was defeated in that election. Thanks to continuing Tory economic policy in Alberta, and thanks to the policies of the new Conservative Government in Saskatchewan, we note today that the province with the lowest rate of unemployment in the country is the Province of Manitoba, thanks to NDP economic policy in that province.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell us how many left the province.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Many are coming back, now that we have an NDP Government. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is fond of saying that we in the NDP are in fairyland when we admonish him to make unemployment the first priority of his Government. Perhaps it is the Minister of Finance who is really in fairyland. Perhaps he should take a lesson from the Government of Manitoba which has made job creation and fighting unemployment a number one priority, and is being successful at it.



[Stage Direction]
The Government is forgetting the people it represents. Ministers are so caught up in preparing for an election they are going to lose-
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canadians witnessed the crass spectacle of a highly placed public servant, Michael Kirby, caught in the act of violating the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) conflict of interest guidelines governing post-employment activity. Canadians should ask whether parliamentarians and public officials observe any standards of conduct beyond the criminal laws imposed on all citizens. The sad part of the Kirby fiasco is that he claimed not to know the substance of the guiding rules nor the terms of their application. That is a poor commentary on his former superior, the Prime Minister. We had better look at other senior and well placed public officials who now fish in other waters for monetary rewards.
Does Jim Coutts know about the conflict rules and their application? Is Michael Pitfield now imparting privileged information and knowledge as he practises the fine art of consulting? It is reported that Senator Perrault is mixing sports pools and baseball franchises. We all remember-


INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT-PLIGHT OF WOMEN
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, statistics released this morning confirm the worst fears of Canadians. There are an additional 64,000 persons out of work, most of whom reside in Ontario and the Prairies. Instead of improving, the jobless rate is falling into a dark abyss paved by the Liberal Government. Something has gone seriously awry when a country this size has 1.3 million registered unemployed and another .5 million who are not counted.
Long term unemployment has become a way of life, to the point where many people have given up looking for work. More heads of households are without jobs than ever before, and the suffering is no doubt felt by each member of a family. There is now more unemployment per capita here than in the United States. As a result, housing starts are down, and manufacturing is reeling from the blow.
What about the huge influx of students hitting the work force within weeks? The meagre attempts at job creation and employer perks offered by the Government are mere band-aid treatment for a malady which requires major surgery. Job availability for women is also finding its way into the abyss. In a time when we strive for equality, women cannot find non traditional work. Instead, many talented woman are forced into traditional female postings, that is if they can find work at all.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not usual to permit references to individual members of the other place by name in that manner.

[DOT] (ms)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last fall the World Council of Churches, under its Program to Combat Racism, wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and warned him of the "genocidal consequences" of oil exploration practices in the Lubicon Lake area of northern Alberta. The 300 Crees of the Lubicon Band have never had a reserve set aside for them, although this has been promised for years.
Now, instead of recognizing their aboriginal rights to their traditional land base, the Alberta Government treats them like squatters. In an attempt to subvert their land claim, the Conservative Government there has tried to persuade Indians to sign up for two-acre plots of land.
Exploration and drilling rights have been given to oil companies and these activities have totally disrupted the traditional hunting and trapping economy.
April 6, 1984

Last week a group of prominent Canadian church leaders, led by Archbishop Ted Scott of the Anglican Church, visited the Lubicon Lake area and confirmed findings of human rights violations. Meanwhile, the Liberal Government in Ottawa does nothing, although it has constitutional responsibility for Indian people. When Indian people are under threat from provincial Governments or large companies, the federal Government cannot stand by. We call on the federal Government to live up to its responsibilities and defend the rights of the Lubicon people.


Mr. Speaker:: The Elon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last month, when the unemployment figures stood at 11.3 per cent, the Minister said, as reported at page 2368 of Hansard:
I suggest that he should wait for the Statistics Canada figures for next month. He might be surprised. What will he say if unemployment comes down next month?
Today we have had the news, and it is all bad. Housing starts are down by 18 per cent, the dollar is down, interest rates are up, and unemployment has risen another full point. What does the Minister say to that?


An Hon. Member:: Wait until next month.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously disappointed by the figures on unemployment this morning. However, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that all the signs in the economy show that the economy is keeping a strong rate of growth.
He refers to housing, for instance. I invite him to look at the figures for the first quarter, the first three months, because he will find that they are 10 per cent over what they were in the last quarter of 1983.
As I said, the results on the unemployment side are a disappointment to me and, I am sure, to a lot of Canadians. But again, if we look at the figures in detail we see that full time employment has not gone down, which means that the basic trend of the economy is indeed toward growth and consolidation of the recovery that we have known, and that all the losses in employment have taken place in part time work.
I expect that the situation in the economy will continue to improve in terms of growth.
We have had good figures in terms of productivity improvement in Canada in the last several months, and I expect that
Oral Questions
these productivity improvements will show themselves in terms of unemployment reduction in the months to come.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is incredible how the Minister can ignore the facts. He continues to ignore the facts, because they are that there has been no growth in employment in this country since September, unless he calls two-tenths of a percentage point growth. In terms of full time jobs, we are 349,000 behind the pre recession level. How can he call that growth?


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Aloysius McGrath: What does the Minister of Finance have to say to the 1.4 million unemployed people out there who have no jobs and who get no hope from the Minister? What does he say to the half million young people who are now going to be joined by thousands of students coming out of universities who will be looking for jobs to finance their education? Will the Minister please be credible for once, if he wants to have any credibility in terms of finding himself a job at the OECD?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that since the depth of the recession we have created 444,000 jobs. Our record in terms of job creation compares very favourably with most other countries. In terms of productivity, I remind my friend also that we have known a very high increase in productivity. For the month of January, the latest statistics on growth in the economy showed a 1.3 per cent increase in Canada, which would indicate a very strong basic growth in the economy in 1984.
As far as students and young people are concerned, the Hon. Member knows that the Government has set aside over $1.3 billion this year to help young people, to try to alleviate the problem of unemployment among young people. Part of that money will obviously be allocated specifically and specially to help students during the course of this summer as the academic year terminates. The Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of State for Youth will be able to make appropriate announcements in that regard.


COMPARISON WITH SITUATION IN UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Today U.S. labour force figures were released coincidentally with ours. They show an alarming comparison. For example, the U.S. labour force is up by 0.6 per cent and the Canadian labour force is up by 0.4 per cent. Yet, during the same period, the U.S. unemployment rate dropped 1.4 per cent while ours increased. The U.S. unemployment rate went from 9.2 per cent to 7.8 per cent, while the Canadian unemployment rate continues to increase. Obviously there is something drastically wrong with the economic course which the Minister has set for the country. I will ask him, now before his Budget is in total

April 6, 1984
Oral Questions
shatters, will he at least make an economic statement to this House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the unemployment figures released today were a disappointment, but they must be seen in perspective and we must not forget that in recent months, we have created a large number of jobs in Canada and also that, basically, Canada's economic growth is strong. The figures released for January, for instance, which are the latest figures, indicate a substantial growth rate for Canada. A growth rate of 1.3 per cent over a period of one month means one of the highest rates we have ever had.
I may remind him as well that, as far as comparison with the United States is concerned, Canada in recent months has experienced a higher growth in productivity per hour worked than the United States. However, this gain in productivity also means we were unable to increase the number of jobs created. As I said before, I hope that in addition to our increased productivity, we shall also see expanding employment and a reduction in unemployment over the next few months. There is reason to believe that this year, there will be a reduction in unemployment, not an increase.


UNEMPLOYMENT AFFECTING HEADS OF FAMILIES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On two occasions recently I have raised the plight of unemployed heads of families with the Minister, and he has just shrugged off their difficulties. This morning we learn there are another 23,000 heads of families who are without work, bringing the total of unemployed heads of families to over half a million. When you take into consideration the number of dependants, the number of children in these families, that brings the total to over two million people who are living solely on unemployment insurance benefits or welfare.
In view of the significant increase this month in unemployment among heads of families, some 23,000 of them, is the Minister content once again to shrug off their concerns, knowing of course that he and his family will be well looked after if the Prime Minister can land him a job with the OECD?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making statements which the record will show are completely unfounded. This Government has indeed shown a great deal of concern toward those who faced with unemployment during recent years. This has been quite clearly stated in a number of statistics that have come out showing that this country, for instance, has maintained its social safety net much better than just about any other industrialized nation during the last recession and the last several years. For instance, while in the United States something like 35 per cent of the unemployed were covered by unemployment insurance
during the recent recession, we have something like 85 per cent of Canadians who were protected during that particular period. I could mention a number of other figures. The actual figures, for instance, are that during 1982 more than 80 per cent of the unemployed were covered by unemployment insurance benefits. As I said, in the United States the figure was 35 per cent.
We have shown our concern, and continue to show our concern for these people who are facing those difficulties. I must say that I do not think we have any lesson to take from the Tory Party in terms of compassion for those who are in difficulty. One only has to refer to the statements made by a number of them in the last several months to know where their heart is.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: If that is the concern and compassion which the Minister of Finance can show for those who are in real difficulty, and if that is his understanding of what it is all about, then sending him off to Paris is a small price to pay for what might come to help out these people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED FEMALE HEADS OF FAMILIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could come to grips with the issue more clearly if I focus it for him. I refer him to the fact that there are 100,000 women who are heads of single-parent families and are out of work today. That is the highest level ever in that category. I say to the Minister that a woman in a situation like that, with two children dependent upon her, probably has a total income of $7,000 per year.
How can the Minister be satisfied, as he said over and over again, with the economic recovery when there are 100,000 women and their children living on that amount of salary, or that amount of income, which is so far below the poverty line?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, here again, I need only refer to certain statements, made by supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party regarding the attitude of that Party towards women, to conclude without hesitation that the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government do not have to be told by the Progressive Conservative Party how to protect women's rights in this country. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that some very influential people within her Party have recognized this fact and admitted that the Progressive Conservative Party is lagging behind the other Parties in the House in this respect.
I may also remind the Hon. Member that regarding unemployment, and especially unemployment among women, the latest figures for last month show that compared to all other categories, women had experienced the highest growth in
April 6, 1984

employment. Unemployment has not increased among women. Last month, the number of employed women increased, while in other groups, employment dropped.
Furthermore, the Hon. Member will also recall that since the recession bottomed out, women were the group that experienced the fastest growth in employment and rose beyond the level where they were during the recession. The latest figures I read indicated that women have recovered about 120 per cent of the jobs they had lost in the recession. Thus, the Government's economic policy has been more effective for women than for any other groups in our society, since employment among women rose more substantially than in any other group in recent months.


ALLOCATION OF FOOD PROVIDED BY VANCOUVER FOOD BANK
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose some questions to the Minister of Finance regarding these devastating and continuing unemployment figures. I would like to try to bring it down to some level of reality and humanity. I have passed to the Minister a list I received from one of my constituents in Vancouver, who went to the food bank. He is an unemployed construction worker, head of a family, and it is a list of food to support a family of five for one week. I want to ask the Minister what I should tell this particular person.
Could the Minister live on the following short list: two loaves of bread, eight muffins, six carrots, two onions, one box of Kraft dinner, one can of tuna, one of chicken noodle soup, one can of pork and beans, one small jar of peanut butter, two packages of Japanese noodle soup, one can of pears, one can of creamed corn, and one package of instant potatoes? Will the Minister tell me what I am supposed to say to my constituent about his job prospects? Also, could the Minister live on this diet for one week?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should tell his constituent that this is the result of the policy of the Social Credit Government of that province, which is very close of the policy of the Conservatives in this House. As the Hon. Member knows, the provision of support for people under the Canada Assistance Plan, and for people on welfare, is determined by the provincial Governments in this country, under our Constitution. We pay 50 per cent of whatever level of support is provided by the provincial Governments in that regard. This is their responsibility. Under the Constitution, we do not have a direct responsibility in this regard. We are paying 50 per cent of that support.
If my friend can convince the provincial Government of British Columbia to improve significantly both its welfare payments and the type of program that is mentioned here, the federal Government will pay 50 per cent of whatever is provided. Unfortunately, the federal Government does not have authority in that regard, as the Hon. Member knows.
Oral Questions


BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister that that is a pathetic answer. People are looking for jobs, not welfare. They do not care which Government has jurisdiction.
This is the Minister of Finance for Canada. He has told this House on past occasions that things are getting better. In answer to a question from the Conservatives today he said there was a consolidation of the recovery. Who is getting the benefit of this recovery? Where is the recovery going? When he told the House two months ago that things were improving, was he just stupid, or was he lying?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: I vote for stupidity.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend is certainly getting carried away with his own rhetoric. I will not fly at his low level. I repeat to him that my first concern is to create as many jobs as we can for the people of Canada. As I indicated, we have to ensure that we are competitive, that we have a strong base whereby we can be efficient, productive, and competitive in a very tough world market. That has been the objective of this Government's policy in my last two Budgets, to build the base upon which this country will be able to provide Canadians with full-time, well-paying jobs, and the stability of employment that we wish for them. My friend has to realize that this takes time and that we cannot expect to cut employment very rapidly in this country if we want to be serious about it.
We have been improving significantly in terms of inflation and increasing productivity. The Canadian economy is growing as strongly as practically any other industrial country at the present time. As I said, I expect this will show up in reduced unemployment during the course of this year.


PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say to the Minister that my constituent cannot go to Paris. He has to live on the food bank in Vancouver.
The Minister said that productivity is increasing. Twice he has said in the House today that productivity is increasing, and that he is expecting a reduction in unemployment. 1 ask the Minister, on behalf of the unemployed construction worker in my constituency, when is that going to happen, when will this man be able to get a job? If productivity is increasing so much, why is it not being translated in terms of jobs, instead of peanut butter and half a dozen carrots for people at food banks?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 will explain to my friend the meaning of productivity. Increased productivity means that, for a lower cost in this country, we will be able to produce the same goods. Even better, we will produce more goods cheaper than before. We

April 6, 1984
Oral Questions
will have more efficient manufacturing plants, both in terms of production and equipment, and also in terms of labour production. This is taking place at the present time. It means that we are better able to compete in the world to sell our goods, both in Canada and abroad. If we were not more productive, we would even have more unemployment than at present. That is the first result of greater productivity. It shows in the record exports that we have at the present time. In Canada it shows that we are competing well in terms of other countries.
If you are going to be more productive and efficient, it will take some time before the plants expand and additional jobs are created. They are generated by increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and competitiveness. This is what we are doing. I regret that it takes time. I would like to be able to guarantee to my friend's constituents that they can have a job tomorrow morning, but I cannot guarantee that.
We have in place a set of policies which ensure that this country is becoming more efficient and productive. We are on the right track, and we will see a gradual reduction in unemployment. We are going to be able to compete in the world.


Mr. Mulroney:: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Finance is hobnobbing with the can-can girls in Place Pigalle, I want him to know he goes with our blessing if he promises never to come back and touch the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: After the damage that he has inflicted on hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Canadian families, I hope he has the decency to stay there in his golden retirement.


DISASTERS
Martin Brian Mulroney: My question is for the smiling Acting Prime Minister whose smile mystifies me given the results of the poll today. Can the Minister bring us up to date on the current situation with regard to the Glace Bay mining disaster where a man is trapped and the slopes, I understand, are presently being sealed to contain the fire? Can the Acting Prime Minister bring us up to date and give a full report in that regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was smiling was simply that, having heard so often about civility from my hon. friend, I realized how rapidly he is becoming uncivil.
The Acting Minister of Mines will have a report on Glace Bay. I am sorry I do not have it now. If he does not have it, I will obtain it very rapidly. The Minister of Labour may have it.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have never changed my mind with regard to the Acting Prime Minister. He was, and is, a civil gentleman, but he must be as shocked and dismayed as I am at the lack of principle when the Minister of Finance, and that Government, have put 1.5 million people out of work, and he has the indecency to scurry off to Paris at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. There is the indecency that causes me, Mr. Acting Prime Minister, to lose some of my civility, and I think you will understand that.
With regard to the matter 1 have raised, is it the intention
of-

Oh, I hit a sore spot! You might as well get a job in Paris too, because you will not have any jobs left in Quebec. The Quebecers have had it up to here with you lot! You are finished in Quebec!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would invite the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition to speak to the Chair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Quebecers and Canadians have had it up to here with the hypocrisy of people who inflict unemployment on Canadians and then go off to a cushy job in Paris. Quebecers have had enough.
Regarding the question I was asking the Acting Prime Minister, is it the intention of the Government, given the serious nature of this matter, to proceed with a public inquiry into the disaster involving loss of life? The question of mine safety regulations has been long studied but not acted upon.
Will the public inquiry also be given a mandate to consider the serious unemployment situation in the Glace Bay area, which now exceeds 20 per cent? In that area people are urgently crying out for help and employment possibilities, notwithstanding their abandonment by the Minister of Finance who is scurrying off to Europe to hide from the sad realities of the Canadian economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that one of my colleagues will answer the question about Glace Bay.
Before sitting down, I would like to inform the Leader of the Official Opposition that the position of Secretary General of the OECD, which is being mentioned as a possibility for the Minister of Finance of Canada, is a position that carries a great deal of distinction and is very sought after. It is an honour for him and an honour for Canada that he has been approached for this position.
April 6, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is ridiculous, when we realize we have a million people out of work!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes indeed, Canada has one million people out of work and there are millions of people who are unemployed throughout the western world at this time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And he is going to help them!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, yes, yes!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come on! Is he really going to help them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come on! This is outrageous!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Most people in Canada realize that the unemployment problem we have in the world today is not exclusive to Canada. It is a problem that exists in all western countries.
The fact that the Minister of Finance of Canada was approached for this position, without having applied for it, reflects honourably on Canada, and I think it is an excellent opportunity for him to demonstrate his competence again, but in a much broader field.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is like manna from heaven!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, for three months in a row, has not been present in the House when the unemployment figures have come down. He has been running off to hide somewhere else.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in his Budget of April 17 a year ago, the Minister of Finance said that his dominant concern was to help the more than 1.5 million Canadians who want to work but cannot find jobs. Today there are 1,541,000 people out of work. The Minister himself hopes that he will Find a job with the OECD. Apparently his concern has now narrowed to one person, himself.
Given that the Minister said a week ago that there are adjustments he could make but he was satisfied with his basic policy, is he now dissatisfed with his basic policy? Will he make the adjustments he said he could make? Will he consult with the Minister of Justice, who says that he knows how to bring about full employment?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I might first mention that it is strange to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition speak as he does because, if there is a man who knows about unemployment in this country, he should be the one, having turned Schefferville into a ghost town and closed about half of the North Shore in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: What about Uranium City?


Marc Lalonde: There is probably no other business person who has created more unemployment and misery in the country than the Leader of the Conservative Party.


Mr. Oueilet:: Just to protect a rich American firm.


Marc Lalonde: I have indicated to previous questioners that the Canadian economy is growing and that we expect the unemployment rate to fall during the course of this year. I still expect this to happen, and I am not considering at the present time making any changes to the Budget that I introduced on February 15.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the theme song of the Government is: "Thrown out the lifeline; someone is coming to take me away". The Minister wants to be taken away to the OECD in Paris.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: I would like to ask the Minister if he realizes that there are eight economic regions in the country in which the unemployment rate remains above 20 per cent? Does he realize that we now have 170,000 fewer jobs than we had at the pre-recession peak? When will he do what he says he will do? He said he could make the necessary adjustments if need be. What is the need? Do 1,541,000 unemployed people not create a need? Will the Minister not take steps to do something now, in view of the fact that the figures have risen this month and not fallen, as he said they would a month ago? It is time for this lame-duck Government to stop giving us lame-duck excuses.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the measures that the Government has taken are contained in the last two Budgets. These measures have led to significant recovery and growth in the Canadian economy. Canada has known a rate of growth which is comparable to that of the United States, and higher than practically every other industrialized country. In effect, this has meant that we have been able to compete around the world. It has meant that we have been able to have a record export surplus and a record trade balance, and it has meant that we have been able to create over 400,000 jobs since the depth of the recession.
Obviously I would have liked to have seen more jobs created faster, and I still hope that that will be the case. We are doing everything we can in that regard. Again, I am encouraged by the fact that we have become more productive, more efficient,

April 6, 1984
Oral Questions
and we have been building a broader and stronger base of growth in our country and this will lead to a further decline in unemployment in the rest of this year.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister said yesterday that Canadians should be worried about the increase in interest rates in the United States. Ele is correct, of course, because the Liberal Government follows American interest rates as slavishly as it follows Conservative interest rate policies here. However, there are substantial differences between the situation in the United States and that in Canada. The American unemployment rate is at 7.8 per cent, while today the Canadian unemployment rate is up to 11.4 per cent. There are over one and a half million individual unemployed Canadians.
Will the Finance Minister give some hope to Canadians? Will he now give unemployed Canadians as well as home owners, small business people, and farmers, some hope that he will show some degree of independence, and prevent the Bank of Canada from following the latest one-half per cent rise in American interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 have answered that question many times. It is extremely difficult to have a completely different and autonomous monetary policy from that of the United States. When an economy as strong and as powerful as that of the United States lives next door to ours, we cannot live in our own world as if that economy did not exist.
I have indicated that we have taken steps to reduce, and over the last couple of years, practically eliminate the difference between the United States interest rates and the Canadian interest rates which were higher previously. At the present time, if my friend were to look for instance at short-term interest rates for 30-day and 90-day paper, he would find that the Canadian rates are below the American rates. He would also realize that today one can still borrow from a bank at a lower prime rate than that of the United States. Consumer loans in Canada are still at a lower rate of interest than in the United States.
We have been exploiting to the maximum the room that we have, in order to have the lowest possible interest rates. That will continue to be our policy and objective, and if there is any way that we can achieve even lower rates as compared to those in the United States, I would like to assure my friend that we would not hesitate to take the necessary steps in that regard. One must be realistic in terms of the situation we are facing.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CONSTRUCTION AND FORESTRY INDUSTRIES
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister likes to talk about fairy tales. If we wanted a grim fairy tale all we would need to do is look at "Puff, the Magic Dragon" over there, who manages to burn thousands of carpenters and loggers with a single blow.
Despite his predictions in reply to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, on March 26, that housing starts would improve, housing starts are in fact down in Canada again. The drop in housing starts is very much connected to the fact that we have 36 per cent unemployment in construction in Canada, 70 per cent in my own riding. We have 35 per cent national unemployment in forestry. In New Brunswick, unemployment in these two industries is over 50 per cent.
Will the Minister of Finance make some effort to take some control over our own economy, or should we tell the Canadian people, if they want to know where their economy is going, they would be better off to watch the American primaries than the Canadian Liberal leadership race?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to the number of housing starts last month. Again I would urge him not to confine himself to last month's statistics, but to look at the statistics for the last quarter. He will find out that housing starts in Canada during the first quarter of this year were 10 per cent more than the output for the last quarter of 1983. In other words, the rising trend in home building in 1984 is confirmed by the overall progression in the first quarter. Fluctuations can be expected from one month to the next, of course, but the significant factor to bear in mind is the basic trend over several months. We will be keeping a close watch on the changing situation in the coming months and, on the basis of prospects over a few months, we will be in a better position to predict what the future has in store for us.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The last time the Minister raised the matter of the shutdown of Scheffer-ville, he had to stand up shortly thereafter and apologize for his actions, as well as the actions of his Department, for misleading the House.
I want to ask the Minister, who, when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not only shut down a mine but
April 6, 1984

shut down the whole town of Uranium City by his actions, in terms of the unemployment which has been caused by the policies of this Government, not only in Glace Bay but in the Yukon, and in Saskatchewan, what initiatives will the Minister take-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to help these people who are suffering unemployment because of policies of the Government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair can only apply the rules of the House. It is a well established rule of the House that a question must relate to a Minister in his present portfolio. It cannot relate to the function of a Minister in a previous portfolio.
Today we apparently are going to set a record with the fewest number of questioners on deck. I invite Hon. Members to reflect on how long a preamble should be, and whether there are any rules at all left for Question Period. I invite the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West to direct the question, if he wishes, to the Minister of Finance, within the rules, bearing in mind his present capacity in the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your references. I simply ask the Minister this question. His Government is responsible for putting literally thousands of Canadians out of work in the mining industry. What is the Minister going to do in terms of a new economic statement, or new initiatives which are going to assist these people who have been deceived and let down by this Government? I ask the Minister that simple question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if I may repeat some of my earlier statements, it is strange indeed to hear the Leader of the Opposition complaining about unemployment, particularly since there is probably nobody in Canada who has thrown so many people out of work as he did when he was president of a well-known company. As a matter of fact, the community of Schefferville has been turned into a ghost town and half the North Shore is deserted thanks to the efforts of my colleague who is now the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. He knows that!
Now that I see his new House leader bite his nail because of the situation in the mining industry, I would suggest that he turn to his leader and ask him what he did or did not do when he was in charge of the Iron Ore Company. I remind him that, when it comes to the Canadian mining industry, ours is practically the most generous tax structure in terms of assistance to that industry.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I again invite Hon. Members to remember that this was originally intended as a Question Period in which questions could be asked and answers given. It is becoming more and more difficult for the Chair. The questions are long from both sides, and sometimes I can barely distinguish a question. In fairness, if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West wants to put a supplementary question, I invite him to do so.


An Hon. Member:: I have a nice short one.


Mr. Speaker:: No? The Hon. Member for Joliette.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance, given the deplorable situation in which Canadians find themselves now. The Minister of Finance may be "disappointed", but Canadians are discouraged.
Under the circumstances, once again the Minister of Finance stands up in the House and promises Canadians that unemployment will go down. In his Budget speech, however, he did commit himself to keep at least 10 per cent of Canadians unemployed in the next five years.
In what context and when will the Minister of Finance be honest enough to tell Canadians that the Government they have today has pledged to keep unemployment at 10 per cent, a level which we think is indecently high in Canada today?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best solution to the problems raised by the Hon. Member would be to begin by reading the Budget papers, for he will realize that his allegation is completely unfounded, just like the statements made by several Conservative Members who claim that the Government grabs 90 per cent of the savings of Canadians through borrowing. The Government takes about 25 per cent, not 90 per cent.
With respect to the projections, the Hon. Member ought to look them up in the Fiscal Plan which was tabled on Budget day, if only to confirm that we expect Canada's unemployment rate to decline sharply in the next five years, to less than 10 per cent. Indeed, we expect unemployment to dip down to about 8 per cent by the end of that time, not 10 per cent. If my colleague should at least go to the trouble of reading those documents, perhaps he might be better informed.
Secondly, I may very well be "disappointed", but unlike the Hon. Member I am not discouraged by the economic trend, quite the contrary. While he is reading the Fiscal Plan, he

April 6, 1984
Oral Questions
should also read what the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada had to say in a recent speech in which he stated that Canadians, and particularly Members opposite, I must add, were unduly pessimistic about the Canadian economic outlook.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONFIRM NEWS OF POLITICAL FUTURE
Roch La Salle: Since the Minister of Finance is saying that my comments are without foundation, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to repeat that, a month ago, he derided the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for saying that the unemployment rate would now be 13.3 per cent. The Minister of Finance made fun of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and said that his figures were absolutely wrong.
This morning, it was announced that we have an unemployment figure of 13.4 per cent. In Quebec, unemployment exceeds 22 per cent in some regions. There is the case of Schefferville, where jobs have long been lost because of a Liberal policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roch La Salle: And the Minister fails to realize or is incapable of understanding-


Martin Brian Mulroney: How true!


Roch La Salle: -not only that the Liberal policies have resulted in the Schefferville shut-down, but also that thousands of other businesses have had to close because of the lack of appropriate policies.
In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Finance whether it is true, and this could be the best bit of news that Canadians will be hearing today, that he is considering taking on new responsibilities. Obviously, we would be most happy if this country were to get rid of the present Minister of Finance, who has made the Canadian people suffer for too long already.


Marc Lalonde: I hope this weekend the Hon. Member will take the trouble to read not just the financial program I tabled with the budget, but also the figures published today by Statistics Canada. He said that the unemployment figure published this morning was 13.4 per cent. He made his big emotional statement saying that the unemployment rate was now 13.4 per cent.


Roch La Salle: 11.4!


Marc Lalonde: The unemployment rate is now 11.4 per cent and not 13.4 per cent, but even this is too high.


Roch La Salle: 11.4!


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member should at least stick to the truth and not state in the House that the unemployment rate has reached 13.4 per cent.
Concerning the Government's unemployment projections for this year and the following years, we expect that the unemployment figures will go down gradually, and this forecast was made when the budget was brought down. Contrary to the statements made by the Hon. Member and others among his colleagues who seem to know as little as he does on this matter, it is expected that unemployment in Canada will fall below 10 per cent within the next five years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister is surely aware that Cameroon was the scene of a coup d'Etat yesterday and that hundreds of Canadians, including many residents of the riding of La Prairie, are now in that country. Would the Minister tell the House whether he is aware of the situation, whether he has been in touch with our embassy and what is the situation of Canadians who are now in Cameroon?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the current situation in the Republic of Cameroon is not clear, but we do not think that the Canadians who are there are facing an immediate danger. There are 280 Canadians in that republic-

We hope to have more information on the development of the coup, in the next few hours. Our present information is that there is no reason for concern regarding the Canadians who are there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) has served notice to the Chair of a point of order.


Mr. Paproski:: Privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Halifax West has served notice to the Chair.


PRIVILEGE
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege that I want to raise and I can state it very
April 6, 1984

briefly. If necessary, I can put it in the form of a motion. I am a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, but I am also a Canadian. In April of 1982 the Parliament of Canada, with the endorsement of Her Majesty the Queen, passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of those freedoms is the freedom of speech, and it is clearly set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I cannot believe that any rule of this House, past or present, with respect to references to Members of the other Chamber can affect my right of free speech as guaranteed to me under the Charter.
1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and determine whether it does not overrule any precedent built up over a period of years with respect to matters like that, which would allow you to interrupt proceedings in this House, specifically statements made on important matters, simply to say that we should not refer to a certain person in a certain way. That surely is not excluded under the Charter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, under Standing Order 21, made specific reference by name to two Members of the other place. The Chair is guided by the rules adopted by the House. When Standing Order 21 was adopted, and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has on a number of occasions brought this to the attention of the Chair, it precluded personal attacks either on Members of this House or of the other place, which is part of Parliament. I cite again from the guidelines issued by my predecessor, Madam Speaker Sauve. She said: "The opportunity is not intended to be used for making personal attacks, conveying congratulatory messages, or reciting poetry for anything other than serious purposes".
Again, there are a number of instances where the Chair has interrupted personal attacks. Until such a time as I receive guidelines from this House indicating otherwise, the Chair will do its best to observe the Standing Orders as the Chair interprets them to be. The Hon. Member has made reference to a motion; he certainly has that privilege. He knows exactly what he can do if he feels the Chair is not serving the House within the rules given to the Chair. However, as long as the present incumbent has the responsibility, personal attacks, either on other Members of this House or by name on members of the other place, will not be permitted.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) on a matter of privilege.


MR. PAPROSKI-STATEMENT BY MR. JOHNSTON
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it has just been brought to my attention by Canadian Press that the Economic Development Minister, Donald Johnston, differed sharply today with federal policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: -by criticizing government involvement in sports pools and lotteries.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please indicate how his personal privilege as a Member is affected?


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Minister differs with government policy. He said that the proposed sports pool and the lotteries are little more than a tax which preys upon the poor and disheartened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He differs with government policy, and he should resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A statement outside of the House can hardly be a matter of privilege in the circumstances. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


POINT OF ORDER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order having to do with Question Period, and I will not recite any poetry. I noted that Question Period today began at 17 minutes after 11, not at a quarter after 11, yet it stopped precisely at noon. I do not challenge the right of the Chair to terminate Question Period at noon, as the Standing Orders indicate, but I was simply wondering whether the Chair had noted the hour at the end of Question Period, and if we were to allow that extra two minutes, that deserved two minutes, to be added to Question Period, there are a number of us here with questions to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has very high regard for the Right Hon. Member, whose observance of parliamentary rules has been exemplary. However, the Chair would point out that, by the clock I was watching, it was two minutes past 12.
My second comment is simply that the Chair at that point was in difficulty in terms of rotation. In the normal rotation the Chair would have to go to the third Party. That again opens up a question and a supplementary. Hon. Members seem quite unwilling to accept the Chair's cutting off a supplementary, even when it goes past 12 o'clock.
May 1 suggest that an examination of the record will show that the Chair has allowed an Hon. Member who has been recognized just before or even just after 12, to have the full supplementary, if it was required. The Chair has gone as much as five minutes past the hour at least twice in the last week. It is difficult to administer perfect equity and justice, and it was a difficult call for the Chair because today was not the easiest of Question Periods.
Ministers' Statements



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
April 6, 1984

Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period a question was raised with respect to the fire in Glace Bay. As the Minister responsible for Devco, I was wondering if I could just respond to that question. 1 have the very sad duty to inform the House of Commons that a fire started at about seven o'clock yesterday morning at the 2000 foot level of No. 26 colliery. Over 350 dedicated miners from Devco escaped, but unfortunately one of those miners is still missing and is presumed dead.
The mine was sealed off last night, the fire is still blazing and we are hoping to put it out as soon as possible. I have not as yet had discussions with the management of Devco with respect to the 1,100 plus miners who work in No. 26 colliery. That obviously will be our first priority as soon as the fire is out, but I thought Hon. Members would like to have this information.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I want to comment regarding this tragedy in Glace Bay. The Minister has a major inquiry under way regarding the affairs of Devco. I simply recommend to the Minister that the safety regulations which the federal Government is responsible for administering be a part of this inquiry. The Minister will also take into account the plans the company has to open up two new mines and to decommission permanently No. 26 colliery, which has caused such incredible hardship, injury and deprivation to so many people since it was commissioned in 1943.
I would like to think that the Minister will make a statement in the House as soon as he is apprised of all the circumstances which led to this new disaster. I sincerely hope he will also be able to announce that, in connection with this particular accident, there will be a public inquiry, something which we have been deprived of in the past in connection with that particular mine.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express my concern to the Minister. A task force of ours has visited this mine. We have also been in touch with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) urging changes to the Canada Labour Code for stronger and stricter health and safety producers. When is the Minister of Labour going to bring in that legislation so that we can deal with this very, very urgent legislation which he knows needs upgrading?


POINT OF ORDER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises out of Question Period. A week ago today, Mr. Speaker, you chose to share your thoughts with the House on the question of bell ringing. I would simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider formulating your thoughts on Question Period. I have the same concern which 1 think you have, Mr. Speaker, about what is happening to Question Period, particularly in the last week.
Question Period has always been a series of mini debates, but they are becoming maxi debates. It seemed to begin the other day when the Prime Minister almost filibustered Question Period. We are seeing more and more of that now. Fewer and fewer back-benchers in this Parliament are having an opportunity to ask questions, which is what Question Period is all about.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you are simply letting us slide until we muster the will to discipline ourselves. That may be a legitimate strategy. However, I, for one, Mr. Speaker, would urge you to use your role as Speaker to discipline the Question Period. If you do not feel people should be allowed supplementary questions, do not allow them. If you think the answers are too long, just get up and call for order. I was here briefly when Speaker Jerome was in the Chair. I remember that is what he used to do. People get used to it and discipline themselves. That is what we need if we are going to continue to have a Question Period worthy of the name.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The record will speak for itself, but I think there is some misunderstanding, almost a Kafka-like situation. When you interrupted me during my presentation under Standing Order 21, I understood that your complaint was that I had mentioned a Senator by name and that it was a violation of the rules of the House to mention a Senator by name. My point is that-


Mr. Speaker:: Let us get it perfectly straight. It was an attack on an individual Senator by name. And two Hon. Members of the other place were mentioned. That is what is irregular, in the opinion of the Chair.


Howard Edward Crosby: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot reflect on a decision of the Chair. I would be pleased to meet with him privately and have a discussion.
With regard to the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), it seems to me this is now a matter for the Procedure and Organization Committee to consider. The Chair again would be at the disposal of Hon. Members and the committee to attempt to improve the situation. The Chair is in the hands of Hon. Members and a servant of Hon. Members. It is anxious to do its best in that capacity,
April 6, 1984

but there have been difficulties with regard to Question Period which I think most Members observe.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have plenty of precedents at your disposal to do something about what has happened in the last week or so. I do not think you need to be instructed by Members in order at least to return Question Period to what it was even a couple of weeks ago-


Mr. Nielsen:: Or by you.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -as opposed to what it has been this last week.
I think you have that authority, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge you to use it.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, April 5, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 14, 645 and 689. I believe question No. 268 is also being answered.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to have legal corporations assume the complete administrative and financial responsibility for the operation of daycare centres in the Public Service?
2.	Will such corporations be subsidized by the Government and (a) if so, on what basis will such subsidies be assessed (b) if not, did the Government consider direct assistance for those parents unable to afford the scale of fees established by the corporations?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The management of the pilot project daycare centres is the responsibility of parent-users, who form a legal corporation and assume complete administrative and financial responsibility for their operation.
2.	(a) The Government provides space, fit-up and maintenance, but does not assume legal, financial or other responsibility connected with the operation of any centres.
Order Paper Questions
(b) For purposes of the pilot projects, the Government has not considered direct assistance for parents regarding the payment of fees. Parents who need financial help can obtain it under provincial and municipal programs which are cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Young: 1.	Does the Government spend any amount for high-technology training programs and, if so (a) in 1983, what amount was spent (b) is there any regular liaison with business and industry to determine the skills employers will require in one or two years (c) in 1983, how many people (i) took advantage of these programs (ii) graduated from these programs (iii) found employment in the field for which they were trained?
2.	Does the Government encourage employers to hire graduates from the programs and, if so, in what manner?
3.	To the knowledge of the government during what average period must graduates wait to find employment in their field?
4.	In 1983, did any companies take advantage of Government on-the-job training grants and, if so, how many?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. (a) Yes, the Government spent the following amounts for training in high technology occupations during 1983:
Institutional training programs	$46.4 million
Industrial training programs	12.4 million
(b)	Yes, there is regular liaison with business and industry to determine their skill requirements.
(c)	(i) The following number of people took advantage of the
training in high technology occupations during 1983: Institutional training programs	6,363
Industrial training programs	3,237
(c)(ii) The following number graduated during 1983: Institutional training programs	3,127
Industrial training programs	2,756
(c)(iii) In respect of the graduates from the institutional training programs in high technology, short-term follow-up survey taken during the 1982-1983 fiscal year indicates that, even within about 13 weeks of graduation, 47.6 per cent of the course completers found employment and, of that, 51.4 per cent were employed in jobs related to their training. A 24-month survey indicated that the training improved the employability of participating trainees by 40 per cent; this supports the expectation that more of the graduates will find employment in the months following the 13-week survey. Graduates from industrial training programs are assumed to be employed by the training firm.
2.	Yes, the Government encourages employers to hire graduates from the programs through its employer services function at official points of service, advertising materials, and the referral of clients to identified job openings.
3.	The results of the trainee follow-up survey indicated that, in 1982-1983, persons who had found a job within 13 weeks of graduation averaged 10 weeks of waiting time before starting to work. A general average is not available.

April 6, 1984
Order Paper Questions
4.	In 1982-1983, there were 20,411 training contracts with employers under the National Industrial Training Program. Some companies may, however, have had more than one contract, therefore the exact number of companies participating in the Program is not available. In 1983-1984, there are an estimated 25,850 contracts under this Program. It is estimated that 2,300 of those will be concerned with training in high technology occupations.


Mr. Gilchrist: Were any funds provided under the Special Employment Initiatives Program in the constituencies of (a) Scarborough West (b) Scarborough Centre (c) Scarborough East (d) York-Scarborough and, if so, in each case (i) what total amount was allocated to the constituency (ii) what total amount was applied for (iii) what date(s) was the funding for the projects announced (iv) what total amount was approved to date?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Please refer to the list of Job Creation projects tabled in the House of Commons on Tuesday, February 21, 1984.
Funding for the Special Employment Initiative was not allocated on a constituency basis. As of February 16, 1984, $207,000,000 was approved in all provinces and territories by some 16 federal government departments and agencies.
[ English]


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting Parliamentary Secretary or his replacement about question No. 368 which is on the Order Paper. It shows the date of January 16. That is because we started a new session. The question has actually been on the Order Paper for three years. It is a simple question addressed to the Department of National Defence about the amount that it has increased the defence budget over the years. The question could not be simpler. I do not think it would take more than 10 minutes of staff work to answer it. I think the problem is that the answer the Department is willing to provide will be a truthful, honest answer and will not be in agreement with some of the flatulent statements that have been made by the last two Ministers of National Defence on the amount by which they increased the defence budget.
I ask once again that the Parliamentary Secretary get after that Department to try to get an answer to a three year old question.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to bring this question to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and also to that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That whereas a sound national transportation system is essential for economic growth in Canada, this House condemns the Minister of Transport for issuing contradictory statements which have created uncertainty and confusion in the transportation industry and amongst users of the transportation system, and for his failure to fulfill his promises and commitments relating to the creation of jobs and investment and the improvement of rail service under the Western Grain Transportation Act; the modernization and upgrading of passenger rail service; the reduction of domestic air fares in 1984; the improvement of transportation safety in all modes; and the revitalization of Canada's marine industries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very important motion because it calls upon the Minister to account for his actions since his appointment to the Ministry of Transport some seven months ago. This motion zeros in on the ad hoc and short-term political approach he has followed. It calls upon him to account for his incoherence in the pronouncement of Government policies with statements which have been contradictory, misleading, ill-conceived, sometimes destructive, sometimes foolish but, above all, inconsistent. It calls upon the Minister to account for his credibility as a spokesman for transportation matters in the country and for his competence.
It has become clear and obvious during the course of the last seven months that this Minister has been consistent in one aspect, that is, he has always put the political interests of his Party and himself ahead of the interests of the people who rely upon transportation and the transportation industry itself. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. He will say or do anything as long as it looks good politically. In summary, that is really the short legacy of this Minister's stewardship since he assumed this very important portfolio.
That is the Minister's number one guideline. The second is that he does not worry about fulfilling the promises or raised expectations as a result of his political musings. He just tells people what they want to hear and does not worry about past statements or actions. He just uses the same old Liberal ballyhoo, deceit and manipulation that his colleague, the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism, alluded to when he left that Cabinet portfolio.
In the course of an adjournment debate the other day I said that the Minister has to be the most shifty, elusive and perhaps
April 6, 1984

the most devious Minister of Transport that I have seen in the House in the last 15 years. The tragedy is that he is using the transportation system as a political vehicle to help save his own political hide and the hide of the Liberal Government.


Mr. Axworthy:: That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Ask him if he is running for the leadership of the P.C. Party in Alberta.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know that the Minister is somewhat perturbed and annoyed over the fact that he would rather be campaigning for his friend, John Turner, than defending his stewardship here today in the House of Commons. But he has responsibilities in the House and he must account for his actions and inactions, and we regret that very much.
In any event, he has not put the best interests of the Canadian people and the best interests of the transportation industry ahead of his own political motivations and the political motivations of his Party.
In this motion we are trying to expose and document that evidence. Throughout the course of this debate I hope that we will be able to demonstrate the examples of his hypocrisy, contradiction, inconsistencies and, yes, even his incompetence and lack of credibility, because he has been carrying on in a rather reckless manner.
Let me begin by referring to a statement that he made last Saturday when he spoke to the Transport 2000 meeting in Toronto. This is what he said-


Lloyd Axworthy: They gave me a standing ovation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, very interesting. More deceit, manipulation and ballyhoo.


Lloyd Axworthy: When is the last time you had one?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Every weekend when I go home I get a standing ovation.
1 am quoting from the Ottawa Citizen as follows:
Any overhaul of passenger rail service in Canada should address the needs of the traveller first and the railways second, Transport Minister Lloyd Axworthy said Saturday.
The article goes on to say:
He also said decisions to close community rail lines or make other changes in service cannot be 'dictated from on high.' Those affected should have a say.
What ballyhoo! What hypocrisy! 1 say to the Minister, "Glory Alleluia". But who can believe him? It was the same Minister who stoutly defended the unilateral cut-back of 20 per cent of the rail passenger service in 1981. I might say that this was done without public hearings, without public input and without even a reference to a parliamentary debate. And in that, some 3,000 to 4,000 Canadians lost their jobs directly and indirectly and service was dismantled for 1.2 million Canadians. There were horrific losses in tourist revenue. They have been estimated to be at $40 million annually, $10 million annually for the community of Jasper. That Minister was the
Supply
key person and crucial in the decision-making process. It appears that the former Minister is going to defend him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am defending myself. I made these decisions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: My intelligence tells me that the current Minister wanted to see a cut-back of 50 per cent of the rail passenger service. He was serving on three crucial Cabinet committees which rendered this decision. He was a member of the Committee on Economic and Regional Development. He was the Chairman of the Western Affairs Cabinet Committee. Incidentally, the west lost 50 per cent of the rail passenger service under that cut-back. He was a member of the powerful Priorities and Planning Committee.
He is now promenading around the country as a white knight in shining armour promising that he will restore rail passenger service. He is pledging now to listen to the public. What balderdash! What phony, political backtracking. That is all that it can be called. If one ever wanted to see a classic manipulation of words and actions, the Minister is the champion at it.
Let us look at some specifics. In his musings, he said that there would be new equipment by 1986. Mr. Pierre Franche came before the committee and said that we will be lucky to have a prototype by 1989. So much for that!


Lloyd Axworthy: Who do you believe?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On the record of the Minister, we certainly do not believe him.


Lloyd Axworthy: I run my Department.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He even recognizes that he is in trouble. The Vancouver service-


Lloyd Axworthy: Where were you for nine months? What were you doing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will defend my record against yours any day, any day at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: Nine months of a big zero.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the Vancouver service? He said he will put in the service to Vancouver. But Pierre Franche said that it is getting only cursory attention. The Minister goes to Edmonton to hold hands with Mayor Decore and have a few photo opportunities. He says that he will put that service back.
What about the service from Moncton to Edmundston? There were no conditions in the announcement. He said that in the fall of 1984 service would be restored to Moncton and Edmundston. He is now saying it will be restored for a two-year trial period.
The VIA Rail promises are indeed a sham. If the Minister is going to put people first, before the trains, then let him move now to restore the rail passenger service to Jasper and Vancouver. Let him move now to restore the Atlantic service and to

April 6, 1984
Supply
restore the Toronto to Peterborough service. Let him do that if he really wants to put people first. Then we will believe him.
However, he has demonstrated previously that he cannot be believed and that he does not really mean what he says. Let us look at another example, again bearing in mind his commitment that he will put people before trains. In Hull last December, he made a speech to the Council of Transport Ministers in which he made a firm commitment to propose tighter and more firm regulations with respect to the movement of dangerous goods in highly populated areas. He resolved to limit speeds in those densely populated areas. He resolved to treat the empty tank cars which are used for hauling dangerous goods as if they were full. He proposed special identification for cars carrying dangerous goods. But what happened? When he made this announcement, the railways announced that his plan was foolish and would not work. His tough stance wilted. He cut and run. So much for the tough stance and so much for putting people before the trains.
I can go on to give other examples. Let us look at the investment arising out of the passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act. The Minister said that his Government will hold the railways accountable. The amount of $16.5 billion was to be invested in the rail transportation system in western Canada over the next ten years, creating 375,000 jobs. Of course, he has engaged in what has now become a $4.5 million advertising and promotional campaign, $3.2 million for last year and $1.2 million for this year.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is that all?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That's all. What's a million? They cannot find money to create jobs for the unemployed.
It was confirmed in committee yesterday that the railways will reduce their investment by $4 billion, to make it $12.5 billion. The Minister's surface administrator alluded to that yesterday.
The Minister plays footloose and fancy free with figures. The other day he remarked in the House that $1.1 billion of new investment will take place in western Canada this year. Upon verifying that figure, we discovered that it is $646 million. That is the way he misleads us. I do not know whether he does it deliberately, I just do not think he knows any better.
Even a Toronto Star editorial states that the Minister is spending a boxcar's worth of taxpayer's money on a pointless newspaper ad campaign. It goes on to say:
In other words, these particular ads are nothing but fluff. They look very much like a use of public tax dollars for partisan electioneering.
That is what it is all about. Let us look at some other examples. What about the $204 million agricultural adjustment fund? He said that it is still in the Budget. Let me quote what he said at the Transport Committee hearing when he first assumed the Ministry. He said:
I can assure you that for my part no Canadian will be a victim of the progress this Bill brings, not the Western grain farmer, nor the livestock producer in either the West or the East in Canada.
Gary Jones, President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said that on the passage of this Bill with a payment of the benefit to the railroads it will cost livestock production by 50 per cent on the ferries.
Well, the $204 million agricultural adjustment fund is still in the Minister's envelope, but it is frozen until 1986. Even with respect to the method of payment inquiry, he did not obey the law, Mr. Speaker. The law clearly says that the committee shall be in place on April 1, 1984. It is not in place. It will not be in place for a couple of weeks. That is absolute contempt for the law.
With reference to the minimum compensatory rate issue, back in February the Minister said we would have a decision in two weeks. That matter is still under consideration. What about the branch line rehabilitation program? He said to my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin): "I want to inform Mr. Benjamin that I am presently negotiating with the railroads and others to develop a revised branchline program, one that will allow us to virtually complete the network. I would hope to be able to bring this forward in three to four weeks." It is still not there. As a matter of fact the Estimates show that the branchline rehabilitation program in Western Canda is being slashed by some $26.6 million.
Finally, on this issue, what about the Western Development Fund?


John Horton McDermid: Where is it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Remember October 28, 1980 Mr. Speaker? Just to refresh the memories of Hon. Members, I will quote from the Budget at page 11: It reads:
We have, therefore, allocated $4 billion to a Western Development Fund, of which we expect to spend $2 billion over the next three years.
Do you know how much has been spent, Mr. Speaker? The fund has vanished and evaporated. The Government took $82 million out of it to pay for the embargo; $60 million to pay for the Vancouver LRT; and $6 million to grant more tax concessions to the railroads. There was to have been $345 million for economic development. That money has vanished as well. So much for the Western Development Fund. That was a tradeoff. That was a quid pro quo for the generosity of Western Canadian provinces that diverted huge sums of money earned from their resources which were to be transferred back for economic development opportunities. What a sham!
Let me now turn to deregulation of air services, Mr. Speaker. I realize that I am fast approaching my time limit, but I want to speak about deregulation. There is nothing that has been more confused, more convoluted and more amateurish than this Minister's approach to deregulating the airline industry. The Minister goes to the United States. He meets with a couple of people. He takes a public opinion poll. Then he says, "Ah, deregulation of the airline industry. That's what we have to do". The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) basically believes he can deregulate Canada's airline industry by importing the total system from the United States. For him it is a new phenomenon. But in the course of his approach, he has raised expectations on which he cannot deliver. For exam-
April 6, 1984

pie, on March 2 the Minister said that Canadians could save the $300 million a year on air travel costs and a less regulated system. When asked him in committee to substantiate those figures, but the Minister could not do so. Ele said it was just an estimate. He then went through the exercise of setting up three different processes. He has the CTC examining the issue; he has a task force composed of bureaucrats and members of the industry; and then he has his own little group within his own office. They are the ones who are going to make the decision. Why is the Minister doing this? It is part of his political mentality and it is part of his penchant for deception. His mind will be made up within his own office, and the rest of it is really just window dressing.
The Financial Post really put this thing into perspective in an editorial on March 10, 1984, which reads:
Trailed by a gaggle of high-priced legal talent hired to represent their air carriers, government departments and other interest groups, the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Committee is on a month-long coast-to-coast tour to solicit public opinion on reducing the regulation of air fares within Canada. At the same time, federal Transport Minister Lloyd Axworthy has a group of bureaucrats working at breakneck pace to prepare new domestic air carrier policy proposals for cabinet consideration within a month.
Axworthy's pre-emptive push makes the travelling committee's work look like a particularly futile exercise. What can be achieved by having both groups operating concurrently? For instance, there's little point in the ATC allowing individual route fares to float at carrier prerogative between ceiling and a floor price, as the airlines proposed last month at the opening round of hearings in Ottawa, if only one or two airlines are allowed to fly any particular route.
It goes on to say:
The move to airline deregulation in Canada is an issue whose time has come. However, the mad rush now under way seems to owe its momentum more to the political attractiveness of cheaper air fares when an election is in the offing than any rational attempt to forge a long-term, workable policy.
That is precisely what is happening. There can be no question in my mind. My Party agrees that deregulation is inevitable. The debate is over the extent to which we are going to deregulate and the speed with which we are going to deregulate.
I remind the Minister that he has a responsibility and an obligation to enunciate that policy. He cannot expect the CTC to outline the policy. It is up to him to outline the policy and ensure that whatever regulations are left in place are fair and equitable and administered in this way. I do not believe, and my Party does not believe for one minute, that you can simply transplant or import the U.S. deregulation system. Yes, we can certainly learn from the American experience. But we must in this country tailor a deregulation policy to suit our own needs. We must recognize that we have quite a different structure in Canada. We have a different climate. We have a different economy. I am glad my friend across the way has flashed the booklet entitled "Domestic Air Policy". That is evidence of the very excellent work done by the parliamentary committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 would say in passing that this work would be the basis of a good starting point toward a planned, orderly and thoughtful deregulation process. There is no question about that.
_____________________________2805
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We must recognize that this has to be done in a thoughtful and orderly fashion.
1 see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. This morning I delivered a letter to the Minister in which I pointed out a number of areas I consider to be of major importance. Having regard to it, I plead with and urge the Minister not to opt for a simplistic political solution. I urge him to proceed in a planned and orderly fashion and not simply on the basis of what is best politically for him. The quick fix, in my view, would clearly discredit the necessity for a more efficient and less regulated system.
There is no doubt that this issue is very complicated. It certainly involves much more than simply deregulating the entry and exit of carriers or controls over fares. It really boils down to a matter of costs. What really is at issue here is that high fares are definitely the unwanted symptom, but the disease is high airline costs. Quite frankly, it boils down to a matter of costs in: the airport system including the taxes, the user fees, the landing costs, and the very structure of the Canadian industry that has emerged in a tightly regulated environment.
Let me remind the Minister that over the last 25 years we have developed an environment that was, under successive Liberal administrations, a tightly controlled and regulated environment. For him to come in as a knight in shining armour and dismantle everything without considering the matter in a thoughtful and workable way would not be doing a service to Canada. In one minute I will conclude. I plead with the Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to advise the Hon. Member but his time has already expired. There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member will have a chance to speak again. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It is really a question which producers and farmers are asking. Producers and farmers are facing increased freight rates. There now seems to be a clear indication that investment is being drawn back considerably toward improving freight lines. This has to be done. It is most important that producers get their grain to the international marketplace, given the fact that they are 1,500 miles from open water at many points. Does the Hon. Member think that what the Government has done has fairly considered the position of the producers with regard to freight rates and to what is happening?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I see it drove the Minister of Transport out of the House with laughter. That just goes to show how much consideration or concern he has for western producers.

April 6, 1984
Supply
The fact of the matter is that farmers were told during the course of the debate that they would get more if they paid more. We now see a dramatic reduction in the railway investment plans of 25 per cent. If that is fair, then it should be fair that the freight rate increases of farmers should be reduced proportionately. I think that is a very clear and simple answer.
Farmers in western Canada are not price setters; they are price takers. Any increase in input costs, whether it be gasoline, diesel fuel, fertilizer, chemicals or freight rates, will undermine their ability to compete in the international marketplace. Increased freight rates will further impair their ability to compete in the international marketplace and have a realistic return.
What is really happening here is that increased freight rates will have a very major effect upon the competitive ability of producers of western Canada. It comes at a time when other major exporting countries are increasing their support for their producers, and we in Canada are reducing our support for our grain producers.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question on deregulation. He started to touch upon it and his time ran out. While the philosophy and principle of deregulation is there and is invoking much interest, in the latter parts of the comments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) he talked about input costs. In terms of input costs, the taxes on gasoline, landing fees and labour costs, after all those costs the structure would really have to be assessed, reviewed and possibly reduced. If we are able to have controlled deregulation, in the experience of the Hon. Member and from the studies he has made or from the American experience, what is the situation in terms of jobs in the aircraft industry? Would those also come down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a whole series of questions wrapped up in that. However, first I want to make the point that we have a very extravagant and elaborate airport system in the country which must be paid for by the travelling public, by the person who buys the ticket. As a matter of fact, our calculations show that in fuel taxes, user fees and in ticket head tax, there are something like $450 million in direct and indirect taxes. We have many Taj Mahals, as the Minister himself alluded to, in the aborted Pickering project and the white elephant at Mirabel which is losing some $50 million per year. These are all costs which have to be absorbed by the Canadian travelling public. We have more excessive landing fees, more excessive taxes and user fees in Canada than there are in the United States. When the Minister considers his whole approach to deregulation, we implore him not simply to load the whole mess on to the backs of the air carriers. He should look at his own shop. He has to do some cost reduction and reducing of bureaucracy and control within his own shop. There is certainly a lot of red tape and many bureaucratic nightmares going on in terms of making a decision. Those are very important points.
The other matter is the role of Air Canada in this whole exercise. That is what is so different about the structure in
Canada vis-a-vis the structure in the United States. Air Canada controls 60 per cent of the market. It is a Crown corporation. The Minister has a two-pronged duty. He is custodian for the shareholders in terms of Air Canada, so he has to represent their best interests, but he also has to represent the best interests of the travelling public. How will he square that issue? These are the complex issues.
The other matter is that when the Minister goes around comparing lower air fares in the United States, he is really talking about the lower air fares of the new entrants whose labour component is 50 per cent of that of the established carriers and whose equipment component also is roughly 50 per cent of that of the established carriers because they bought planes on the used market at a time of recession. Their unit costs are much, much cheaper. When the Minister talks about People's Express and the new entrants in the system, he certainly should not suggest to Canadian travellers that they will have the same advantages as they have down there. Then we have the population and the hub and spoke system which works so effectively there. It will only work on a limited course here.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. Mirabel is costing us almost $50 million a year. I noticed a week ago that it probably had the biggest crowd since the Liberals threw the opening cocktail party of that white elephant when a rock star by the name of Boy George arrived. Maybe the Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. In the questions and comments period, Members are allowed to put questions or to make comments upon the speech that has been made. I cannot find the relevance at the moment to the remarks of the Hon. Member. He should direct his remarks, either comments or question, to the speech of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


John Horton McDermid: I was talking about Mirabel Airport which he mentioned in his speech.lt was a comment on that and it is going to be a question on that as well, if I may finish my train of thought. I suggest to the Minister that he might throw the odd rock concert out there and maybe the airport will start paying for itself.
The Minister has made the statement that deregulation would improve the deficit position at Mirabel Airport. He has not explained how that would happen. I cannot imagine how deregulation would improve Mirabel Airport, because nobody wants to fly in there. Could the Hon. Member shed any light on that statement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I cannot imagine how that could happen either. Perhaps the Hon. Member might more properly address that question to the Minister. If it were a totally free and unregulated market, all air carriers would refuse to go there and the airport would have to be closed down.


John Horton McDermid: Exactly.
April 6, 1984


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That might be the best thing that could happen.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the Minister-for the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


John Horton McDermid: You were right the first time.


Sidney James Parker: My first question to the former Minister of Transport, concerns a matter we were discussing in the debate on Bill C-155. We put forward a proposal, which possibly would have avoided this Opposition Day discussion, in which we called for the separation of that Bill. We wanted the Bill to be separated so that we would have a separate one dealing with rail transportation and the railways could live up to their commitments. We could have tried to deal with that in a separate vote. We also wanted the matter of the releasing of the coal lands dealt with in a separate vote and we wanted the grain freight rates dealt with separately. We could have dealt with that in a very serious way. The Conservatives did not allow that or would not support it.
With regard to VIA Rail, the Hon. Member mentioned its upgrading from Edmonton to Jasper to Kamloops. Would he see that as seriously affecting the Transcontinental train which runs from Calgary to Vancouver? It would have very serious effects if it were not maintained as a railway transportation system across Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, there were so many rather frivolous and phoney amendments introduced to Bill C-155 by the NDP that most of them could not be taken seriously. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member would categorize that particular amendment as one of the package of serious amendments or one which was frivolous. What disappointed Members of this Party very much was that we were unable to debate the Bill fully. We had a whole host of other amendments with which we wanted to proceed.


Mr. Dion:: There were two years of obstruction in committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member referred to two years of obstruction.


Rolland Dion: One year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is absolute nonsense. He knows not of what he speaks. The Bill was introduced in May and it passed the House in November. That was the only period of time in which the issue was really dealt with by the House of Commons. The fact of the matter is that there were many frivolous amendments. I can tell you that our purpose from day one-


Rolland Dion: Was to do nothing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -was to improve and protect the interests of the farmers.
Order Paper Questions


Rolland Dion: You were doing nothing. I was there.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If we were doing nothing, how come Hon. Members across the way accepted 55 amendments proposed by the Conservative Party?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Even the back-benchers are engaged in this political manipulation and ballyhoo. They do not speak from facts; they speak from political instinct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that the time for questions and comments has expired. For debate-


Arnold John Malone: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, would you seek unanimous consent to extend the time for questioning so that more of us will have a chance to get good wisdom from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)?


Rolland Dion: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I clearly heard a "no", but I could put it again.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The answer is no. For
debate, the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. If the Minister of Transport will excuse me, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hopkins) is rising on a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, when I listed the questions that would be answered today, I believe I included Question No. 268. I want to correct that statement because Question No. 268 has not been answered today. I would repeat that those that were answered today were Nos. 14, 645 and 689.

April 6, 1984
2808_____________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That whereas a sound national transportation system is essential for economic growth in Canada, this House condemns the Minister of Transport for issuing contradictory statements which have created uncertainty and confusion in the transportation industry and amongst users of the transportation system, and for his failure to fulfill his promises and commitments relating to the creation of jobs and investment and the improvement of rail service under the Western Grain Transportation Act; the modernization and upgrading of passenger rail service; the reduction of domestic air fares in 1984; the improvement of transportation safety in all modes; and the revitalization of Canada's marine industries.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment and discuss some of the interesting proposals that have been put forward. First I want to thank the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for having listed so eloquently the number of accomplishments we have been able to bring forward in the last six or seven months. We do, of course, have some quarrel with the interpretation that he puts upon those various initiatives. He seems to interpret them purely as matters of political response as opposed to what they clearly are, that is, responding to the clear public requirement for change.
I do not expect Tories to understand reform and change. We know full well that it is not in their mentality to understand how to go about changing something and bring about an improvement. As we know, they are defenders of the status quo, the established interest of the people who are simply digging their heels into the trenches and unable to make any judgement as to where we should go to bring about improvement in this country. It is understandable that they would be just a trifle vexed when a Minister or a government comes along with some ideas, energy and enthusiasm to make changes in the very important transportation system.
I can understand the frustration of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. If we add up the list of what has happened in the last six months and compare it to the absolute zero of what happened in his nine months, the comparison is slightly odious. I understand his personal pique, his sense of frustration that he does not find himself in a position of being able to make those kinds of complimentary comparisons. I appreciate the fact that he has been awake long enough to know what we are doing. He is now trying to ride the coattails and attach himself to those initiatives.
Now the Hon. Member is saying, "Me too". He is beginning to sound like his Leader. All of a sudden he is finding that there are policies out there. Just like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), he is going around saying, "We have policies", not that we have seen them. The Member for Vegreville is now properly saying that they believe in better prices for air travel. Why did he not do something about it?
He says they believe in doing something about passenger rail service. Why did he not do something about it when he had the opportunity? All that we hear from the other side is a confession, the fact that they wish they had tried to adopt what we are doing. They are trying to piggyback and coattail on the very important developments in which we are engaged.
It is important in describing those developments to clear up some of the confusion. If I can make one small criticism of the Hon. Member for Vegreville, it is that he is ignorant. He does not really relate the facts as they are. If you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I wish to use a moment or two to clear up those problems. I am sure the Hon. Member would like to know a little more about our transportation system. This is the opportunity to tell him about it.
First, let us talk about the impact of the grain transportation Bill. The major initiative to provide for a competitive, productive transportation system is the single most important development in western Canada and in the economic life in this country in this decade. Who was opposed to it? Who did not have the guts to recognize that change was required? The Member for Vegreville and his colleagues. They say we should have an improved transportation system, but they opposed what everyone acknowledged had to take place, namely, a change in the system to allow us to compete for markets abroad.
I read recently in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix a comment made by a high official in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He said that in the 1970s they were able to take markets away from the Canadian producer because of the poor quality of our delivery system, but in the 1980s we are going to take markets away from them because we are now making the changes that we recognize have to be made. That shows that we have the guts, the will and the motivation to make the necessary change, not to hide behind some reactionary cloak of "It's not time", not to find excuses for not making change. Those changes are now going ahead.
The railways have committed $1.1 billion in new investment. We are buying hopper cars in Trenton, Nova Scotia in the constituency of the Member's Leader. We are buying locomotives in London. The Beaver Tunnel tenders are now out for call. It will be the single largest construction project going on in North America. That system is being brought up to capacity right now because this Government had the motivation and purpose to make a decision, which the Conservative Party did not have, and never will have because they do not know how to make decisions. They do not know how to make change or reform.
We are now prepared to look at the new forecasts for that railway system. This morning in Winnipeg, and unfortunately I was prevented from attending, the Senior Grain Transportation Committee is looking at the railways' investment plans, reviewing them to see how adequate they are. We believe that that judgement should be made by all the participants in the system. The railways, producers and grain companies are all there this morning to review those investment plans and to give advice to the Government as to whether they are adequate. We
April 6, 1984

do not rely on the fantasies of the Hon, Member for Vegre-ville. We go to the people who are affected by the program. Unfortunately, because of his introduction today, I was not able to share in that discussion, but I hope to join them later.
Let us talk for a moment about rail passenger services. What have we tried to do in the last six months? First, we put a five-year capital program together so that VIA Rail has a clear certainty as to investments and modernization. They are now making those investments; $300 million for new maintenance bases and the beginning of a new prototype car and wagon for the Atlantic and western regions. In the meantime, they are modernizing present equipment to bring it up to standard during that period of time. There is the introduction of a new discount program for senior citizens and young people to get more people travelling on our passenger rail.
We are providing the kind of incentive and encouragement to our rail passenger system that people will respond to. The Hon. Member was kind enough to quote from a speech I gave on Saturday. He was not prepared to quote from that article the part about how Transportation 2000, a group deeply interested in the consumer interests of this country, applauded that performance. They realize we are now making the changes that the Tories never even thought about and will never be able to introduce because they do not have the guts to make changes. They do not know how to reform the structure.
Let us talk for a moment about the air system. I was glad to see that the Hon. Member rapidly hopped on his bicycle, trying to catch up to the new policy that we are bringing in. He is now trying to capture lost ground. We are not importing any kind of policy from another country. We are devising our own policy here. The CTC is listening to Canadians across Canada to get their points of view so that we will have a policy that reflects the unique characteristics of Canada.
We are also looking at some of the other basic questions relating to the financing and the role of Air Canada, and labour relations which are not part of that study. We will bring those two channels of communication and policy development together and go to Cabinet this spring. We will have a new policy that is and has been based on a large-scale public debate. We believe in the public fora. We believe the debate among Canadians should be taking place and it is taking place now.
In his resolution, the Hon. Member for Vegreville asks what is the result of it. I point out to the Hon. Member, who has been in a long 20-year sleep, that in the last three months the airlines have brought in major discount fares, cutting prices on seat sales by 50 per cent or 60 per cent. They have brought in a discount program for senior citizens and young people. They have brought in programs where the CTC is now making decisions, opening new routes into the United States and other areas, something which they did not do in years past.
The debate has already created a climate of reform, a climate of change, a climate in which the consuming public in this country is going to get the deal that we promised them they would get.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. When the House adjourned at one o'clock, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor. Following the Minister of Transport's speech, there was to be a period of 10 minutes allowed for questions and comments. I would suggest that in the circumstances, because the Minister of Transport cannot reply, any questions posed should be rhetorical. Nevertheless, Hon. Members may make comments if they wish.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the Minister's remarks, he made reference to the fact that this Party was getting on the deregulatory bandwagon. Quite frankly, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, deregulation is a phenomenon that the Minsiter had just discovered. He went to the United States for a weekend, met with a few people and learned that air fares were a little cheaper there. He had a briefing session, and so he came back and took a public opinion poll and realized that it would be politically right to get on the deregulatory bandwagon.
Just to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the nine months that we were in office. I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) is here. He has acknowledged the steps the Conservative Government took at that time in terms of scaling down the regulatory burden and opening up the opportunity for increased competition and innovation through cheaper air fares.
For example, we took steps to relax the restrictions on the licensing of routes with respect to entry and exit. We took action to provide greater flexibility to allow for more competition. We took steps to increase the utilization and efficiency of the total system. We took a very important step, Mr. Speaker, when we relaxed very dramatically the domestic air charters, because the regulations had been very strict. The country's major air charter company, Wardair, was really impotent in terms of penetrating the domestic air charter service. We took steps to relax those regulations very dramatically.
The fact of the matter is that prior to our being in office, only 15 per cent of air travellers in Canada flew at discount rates. Some of the initiatives we took were in terms of the relaxation of the restrictions on routes and on the seat sales. We encouraged people to travel in Canada. We also reduced the pre-booking deadline and the minimum stop requirements. We even encouraged the utilization of the belly-hold for cargo on domestic ABCs. Again, the objective was to increase the
2810

April 6, 1984
Supply
efficiency not only of the airplanes but indeed of the airport system.
As 1 said, prior to our relaxing those regulations, only 15 per cent of Canadian air travellers travelled at discount rates. This really went into effect in February, 1980, and as a result, today 50 per cent of the Canadian air travellers travel at domestic rates. So we really laid the groundwork.
1 should say as well that in terms of expanding competition from a regional perspective, we laid the groundwork-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -for Pacific Western Airlines to service Brandon and to service Toronto. Those are a few examples -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Hold it, please. I am prepared to allow the Hon. Member to continue provided no other Hon. Members want to use part of this time. However, I must try as best I can to give everyone an opportunity to participate.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Mr. Speaker, York-Scarborough is the largest riding in Canada. I represent over 200,000 residents with approximately 130,000 voters.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is this your maiden speech?


Paul James Cosgrove: It is not my maiden speech. I was merely setting the groundwork, Mr. Speaker, to explain that geographically, in the centre of the riding, is Canada's largest railway yard operation by CP Rail.
I wanted to comment that the presentation made by the Minister this morning is indicative of the vigour and sensitivity which was reflected in his response to a problem which I, as a Member of Parliament, encountered in the operation of that yard. I wanted to indicate, Mr. Speaker, once again that the Minister's leadership in a number of areas, for example, last touched upon by the previous speaker, was reflected in the success I had in resolving the problem with the noise created by what is referred to as the "hump" operation, the making up and breaking up of large train sections coming into that area which, as I say, is in a built up section of Metropolitan Toronto.
It was with the assistance of the Minister and the officials of the City of Metropolitan Toronto, and even of the provincial Minister of the Environment, that we were able to work out co-operatively a plan to solve an irritant which caused great trouble in the community. I, for one, am appreciative of the vigour which the Minister brought not only to that problem but to the issues he talked about in his presentation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any other comments?


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Speaker, I presume I will have an opportunity now to make a brief comment at least, if not ask a question, on the Minister's remarks just before we broke for
lunch. My comment is with respect to a very specific item which occurred during the committee stage of Bill C-155, dealing with alfalfa and alfalfa products, whether or not they should be allowed to be covered by, shall we say, the new process under the terms of Bill C-155.
The Minister will remember this instance very well. I wanted to address the question to him personally. I have addressed the question to him in the House. I have written to him about it, and so on. We produce a lot of alfalfa products in my constituency and they consist of cubes, meal and pellets. These three items are now in reasonably strong demand in the export market, especially to Japan. Under the terms of the new Crow legislation they should be able to be shipped by rail to the seaboard and then, of course, by boat all the way to Japan, and this should help the total operation. Unfortunately, the railways appear to be able to make their own interpretation of the new ruling and have been finding ways to charge if not higher freight rates, at least higher surcharges or some extra kinds of charges, which has made it exceedingly difficult for one of my businesses, namely, Tirol Dehydrators, operating in the towns of Tilley and Rolling Hills, Alberta. This company has been in operation for eight years.
The interpretation by both railways of how this new freight structure is to work seems to be entirely their own, even though they have been instructed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), through the Canadian Transport Commission, to operate according to the new process.
I want to draw this situation to the attention of the House. It is a hardship. It seems there is no way that these products can be shipped to Japan by using hopper cars to ship them to the port of departure on the West Coast, Vancouver or Seattle, because it is just too costly. However, shipping by containers which are sealed and moved by special transport to a railway point of departure, either at Calgary, Lethbridge or Medicine Hat, then being hauled to Vancouver or Seattle by rail, then transshipped to the decks of ocean freighters, is a viable operation. If they must ship by hopper cars, which it seems the railways feel they must do, then it is almost impossible. 1 hope the Minister will give some attention to this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the ten-minute period for comments. Debate.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the Opposition motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). The motion reads in part:
That whereas a sound national transportation system is essential for economic growth in Canada, this House condemns the Minister of Transport for issuing contradictory statements which have created uncertainty and confusion in the transportation industry.
This is exactly what the New Democratic Party said during the debate on Bill C-155. Everyone in this House knew that we needed changes to our transportation system. We on this side knew that it must be upgraded, but we wanted a transportation Bill which would deal with transportation issues separately, to be voted on separately, with some guarantees by the railways

April 6, 1984

as to how the system was going to be advanced, and so on. We wanted another separate Bill with respect to the release of the coal lands which had been tied up for over 80 years. We wanted to know how they were going to be released and how the Government was going to develop them. However, that matter had to be voted on in the same Bill.
We also wanted to be able to deal with grain freight rates separately so we could identify what the costs were going to be. We said that on May 19. We requested that the Conservative Party support us on the issue of having the Bill divided, but we could not get that support. And here we are today debating the problems relating to this omnibus Bill.
The Government has guaranteed $560 million a year for the next three years in railway upgrading. There is no guarantee that the railways are going to carry out these kinds of programs. Much of the work mentioned by the Minister will be taking place in my riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, such as the Beaver Tunnel, the new shops in Golden, and the doubletracking, all very worthwhile and needed projects. But there is no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that the work is going to be available to the people in my riding. At this time, 96 per cent of the people in the building trades are unemployed, yet when they try to get work on these projects, they cannot. The Department of Transport will spend $4.5 million this year in advertising and programs dealing with these kinds of projects, and the people are told about all the employment which is going to be created. I want to see some of that employment. The workers in my riding want to see some of that employment. There is a great deal of concern regarding these megaprojects. Some $560 million a year and a new diesel shop in Golden-I welcome that kind of project which is needed to repair and maintain this equipment in good order. But while that is being done, what is going to happen to the repair shop in Revelstoke which has been there for over 100 years? What is going to happen to the repair shops in Cranbrook and Field? Anyone with any knowledge of railways knows that those workers are going to have to move from Revelstoke, Cranbrook and Field to Golden when the project is completed. There will be some very serious ramifications for these communities. While we agree that these projects must take place, the companies have a responsibility to those communities.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Change must take place but without change.


Sidney James Parker: Let us have change, but orderly change. Perhaps a part of the company's pension department or billing department could be moved there to offset those changes. When the trains can cross that system in three or four hours instead of ten or eleven hours, will the company come forward and say it would like to move the terminal from Revelstoke to Golden, completely destroying the viability of that community? The only thing they have left is their position as a divisional point of CP Rail. They must have some assurance that if this company is going to make technological changes of that nature, it will use some other part of this large company to offset the changes. If that is not done, there will be serious
Supply
ramifications and the whole community will wither away. I for one will not allow that to happen without making some effort to get commitments from the railway company and from this Government to ensure that it does not happen.
We spoke for a few moments about passenger rail service, Mr. Speaker. Passenger rail service is something other than rail service in the corridor from Windsor to Toronto to Montreal. VIA Rail goes across this country, and we have seen a deterioration of that system in western Canada, especially from Winnipeg west. There is supposed to be new equipment coming on stream by the year 1986. But they have done nothing but allow the equipment to deteriorate.
We used to have what they called "the Canadian" when CP Rail operated it. It was a crack train across Canada. After VIA Rail took over, they took the better part of that equipment off, amalgamated it with old CNR equipment, upgraded it and said, "That is good enough for the West; we will build all the new equipment for the Atlantic Provinces and central Canada". Well, I say it is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. At this very time up in Jasper hearings are being held to look at the possibility of reinstating the train from Jasper to Kamloops. I question that also. Are we now going to lose the passenger train from Calgary to Vancouver? Are we going to lose the only other link we have with the Transcontinental train? I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy): Not on your life! Not without a fight from the people of my riding and those of western Canada. We need an updated transportation system which is going to serve the people and not turn them away.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in the Standing Committee on Transport we questioned the $4.5 million being used to brag about the Government's changes to the transportation system. This $4.5 million advertising and display program is nothing more than a political platform for the Liberal Party in order to try to convince the people about this scam they have created. When the west joined Confederation the Crow rate was part of that agreement. We have been sold down the river by a Government which has forced this change through legislation which was opposed by virtually every Member of Parliament from Winnipeg west, except for the two Liberals from Manitoba. Yet the Government forced it through, and now we are beginning to see some of the ramifications.
When I first came into this House, Mr. Speaker, there was a Bill called the Western Development Fund. There was supposed to have been $4 billion in that fund for development of the west. What has happened to that fund? I know what the Government is going to say. Well, we have changed that. We have the Western Grain Transportation Bill in its place. Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. There is no guarantee regarding what is going to take place or where the money is going to be spent. We were told in committee yesterday that the railway's contribution to the fund will be $90 million this year. There is $560 million of federal money and $90 million of railway money. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Where are the guarantees that the transportation system is going to

April 6, 1984
Supply
receive this money? Where is the guarantee that the grain producers are going to benefit from this?
The transportation of dangerous goods was also mentioned by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to express concern about that. We have had a serious accident in Mississauga, a near accident in Medicine Hat, trains 120 cars long handling dangerous goods, and at this very moment CP Rail has put in an application for the testing of trains with a view to removing the caboose. How in heaven's name, Mr. Speaker, can we even be considering such a move? We have communities all along the rail line and trains of that length handling these dangerous commodities and the railways have the audacity to come forward and say that on such and such a date we are going to be testing trains with a view to taking the caboose off. It has to be madness, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister and his Department ought to be ashamed of themselves for even considering it at this time.
Regarding the $2.5 million agriculture adjustment fund, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport was to have set up the committee by April 1, according to Bill C-155. To this date we have seen no part of that committee. We in the NDP find that deplorable. That was a commitment made when the Bill was passed, and yet the Minister has not even seen fit to set up the committee to deal with the adjustment fund regarding the prairie producers.
The abandonment of rail lines on the Prairies was also discussed. The Member for Vegreville questioned the administrator of the Transport Committee with regard to the abandonment of rail lines. We were told that those moneys are not at this time in the Budget but there will be changes made to ensure that they are there. That is not good enough. It shows the kind of attitude the Government has. The Government meets with the railway companies, makes decisions, and then comes here and rubberstamps them. Mr. Speaker, when is the Government going to start to govern in a way that is in the best interests of the people of Canada?
I would like to speak for a moment about the deregulation of airlines. I have a great deal of concern about that. While it may sound interesting and inviting, I am worried about the small airlines such as PWA that come into Cranbrook and the schedules that are set. Those issues are important to those communities. If we bring about deregulation and allow those companies to fly only in areas where the fares are inviting and encouraging, smaller communities could be very seriously affected. That is not good enough for a transportation policy of this country.
I commend the Hon. Member for bringing forward this motion on an Opposition day. I only wish we had had the opportunity to have this Bill separated. The Minister said this was a frivolous motion. I believe that was one of the most important motions put forward during the debate on the Crow. We could have discussed the very issues I have outlined and have had guarantees that the company would do certain things. We wanted certain conditions in that piece of legislation so that workers would feel they could contribute to those discussions.
There are some very serious matters that must be addressed here, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Government will ensure that some of these things are protected. CP Rail has set up a separate entity called CP Special Projects. They put their contracts out to tender to non union contract companies. These companies are coming into the Province of British Columbia mainly from the Province of Alberta. This denies the people in the Kootenay East-Revelstoke area the opportunity to work. It is believed that many of these companies are being assisted by the federal Government issuing work permits in violation of the Fair Wages Act. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. It is something we cannot accept.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10 minute period for questions or comments.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Hon. Member who just spoke. It deals with his closing comments. It seemed to me he was very much against people from Alberta and other provinces of Canada going into British Columbia and taking jobs in that province. In my opinion, Sir, we are all Canadians. We ought to be able to find work anywhere in this country without hindrance.
Why is the Hon. Member of the opinion that Canadians should not be free to travel between provinces to seek work wherever they can find it?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, in no way would I suggest that people from Alberta or any other part of Canada should not be able to travel freely from province to province. However, the Conservative Government of British Columbia has created such hardships in that province that our people are finding themselves in lineups for soup kitchens, as we heard this morning. They have been told in $4.5 million advertisements that they will have work on these projects. Naturally they feel a great deal of resentment when the contracts are awarded in other places while 96 per cent of their workforce is unemployed. I share that resentment, as much as I would like to be able to see people from other parts of Canada come to our beautiful province. We in the Kootenay East-Revelstoke area want some recognition and some part of that action. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any other persons rising to make comments or to put questions? If there are no further Members with questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) for debate.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the comments of my hon. friend from Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), and my conclusion must be that his speech was full of contradictions, because while he spoke out against everything the Government is trying to do in the West to upgrade the railway system, he was also insisting


April 6, 1984

that the jobs go only to the people in his riding. When the Transport Committee was out West, the Member for Portneuf (Mr. Dion) told me that the industrial commissioner in his home town was not very pleased with his Member's record. However, Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to concentrate on regulation and our domestic air policy. First, 1 would like to thank the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for moving a motion that gives me a chance to talk about transport.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, I cannot agree with the wording of the motion of the Member for Vegreville, because it condemns the Government for taking initiatives which the Minister says are popular. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that anyone who accuses us of wooing the voters is entirely wrong. I think it is clear that if a policy is god, it will also be politically acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I remember, and my interest in transport goes back a number of years, that my former boss, the former Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, was always reminding me, although he was a Member from the West, that we first had to make sure that what we were doing was right, and if it was, it would be politically right as well. The Member for Vegreville, who was Minister of Transport for nine months, seems to hold the view that we should do nothing, in case it might be politically right and acceptable to the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, the changes in the Crow rate, the jobs that have been created and the abundance in wealth this will bring to farmers and workers out West and to western ports, will benefit not only the local population but the entire country. I can hear the Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), right in the centre of the Province, speaking like an expert on the Crow policy. Imagine! This Member whom I see often enough already on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and who is a self-styled expert in certain areas, is certainly not an expert on this subject. I would even say it is doubtful he is an expert on anything, but I will get back to that later.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear, and despite these interruptions, and in fact, I am not surprised at these interruptions by my hon. friend, because he seems to be imitating the lack of civility of his Leader, who ignored the House of Commons for several months and has now come back to life, launching insults and behaving himself in a way that is unworthy of a politician. However, enough of the lack of civility of the Leader of the Opposition, and on to our domestic air policy. The Committee on Transport examined our domestic air policy for nearly four months, and as the former Minister of Transport mentioned earlier, has produced a report of which all members are very proud. And 1 want to point out with respect to that report that it was prepared rather quickly, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who was then the Progressive Conservative spokesman on that committee was exceptionally co-operative. Our order of reference came on December 15, 1981, and the hearings began in January and were concluded in February. Our report was
Supply
submitted in March 1982. Three months after we received our order of reference, the members of the committee were ready to release a report.
This report is the result of the joint efforts of parliamentarians who realized that the conditions prevailing in our country were simply not good. What was our domestic air policy like when we held those hearings and what is the situation today? Let me give a brief summary, Mr. Speaker. There was in western Canada a company called Pacific Western Airlines Limited which, for important reasons I do not support, was sold to Alberta. There was also Transair which went bankrupt. Its assets were bought by Pacific Western. There was also Nordair, a company which had lost its sense of purpose and was sold to Air Canada, and Quebecair, a company experiencing serious financial troubles that had to be bought by Quebec. Finally, there is EPA which admittedly has some problems. It had to move from Gander to Halifax and once again, there are some rumblings ... It is in a difficult situation.
When we examined the domestic air policy, Mr. Speaker, we noted the failure of countries who have tried to strictly regulate their domestic air carriers. La Presse mentioned in an editorial on February 20, 1984, that we had to find a way out of this chaos. Well, the solution is clear, and it is not to leave things as they are, for the statu quo is a complete failure. The current policy is a failure. Why is it a failure? Because this is an entirely new generation of aircrafts. We are no longer dealing with propeller aircrafts, but with long range jet aircrafts which can transport a great many travellers over very long distances. To limit a Canadian carrier to a single province, therefore, would be to sign its death warrant.
If we take for granted that the statu quo is no longer unacceptable, we have to choose between two alternatives. Either allow the state, through Air Canada, to purchase and own all these companies, which means that there would be only one airline, an alternative which I oppose very strongly, or increase the territory of our carriers-this is the solution which is proposed in the report, which I support, and about which we have received so far no response from Transport Canada officials-to provide those which have similar equipment with comparable routes, thereby allowing Canadian carriers and businessmen willing to risk their own money to fly routes of their own choosing, and allowing also consumers to select their airline and to decide at what time and how often they want to fly, and at the price they are willing to pay. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is proper for Transport Canada officials to decide when and how air travellers should fly. Air travellers can decide that on their own, and market forces should determine which companies will survive, the types of aircrafts used and the flight frequency.
As to prices, the former minister of transport suggests that they might not decrease if our carriers are deregulated.

April 6, 1984
Supply
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize, as did the former Minister of Transport, that we have fixed costs in Canada, such as fuel costs, landing fees, airport user fees and transportation taxes. Since all companies have to face those costs, Mr. Speaker, we have to look elsewhere.
If those fixed costs do not change and if people want lower fares, we will have to look elsewhere. Now then, Mr. Speaker, any profitable airline company has to meet a payroll and operating expenses before making a profit, which should amount to about 30 per cent of its expenditures. A good example would be to compare People's Express in the United States with payroll expenses and fringe benefits of 20 per cent, and Air Canada whose payroll and fringe benefits take up 38 per cent of revenues.
Mr. Speaker, if people really expect lower fares in the future, the various groups-management and unions-will have to get their act together and cooperate to restore some form of equity in salaries paid by the airlines. Let us take the United States as an example, Mr. Speaker. Before deregulation, or before the consumer market was really thrown wide open, it was not unusual for instance to find that a secretary working for an airline company was earning 40 per cent more than a secretary with similar skills in another industry, that a programmer was getting 35 per cent more than if he had been working for another employer, and so on down the line. It stands to reason that the customer has to make up the difference if salaries are way out of line with those prevailing on the existing market.
Who are the customers, Mr. Speaker? People like you and I who have to travel or who go on vacation once a year. The situation being what it is, what with protected routes where competition is banned, why should the airlines even try to lower costs if they can eventually pass those inflated costs on to their paying passengers? That is exactly what I want, Mr. Speaker. I want strong competition between airline companies so that the passenger will stand to gain something from sound company management. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have another very serious problem in Canada, in the sense that the Canadian consumer is increasingly wary of the price of his airline ticket. Here is an example: Air Canada flights are often practically empty, so the company sells tickets at reduced prices and fills its aircraft because management has come to the conclusion that lower fares and full planes are more profitable than high fares and empty planes. The second thing they found out, Mr. Speaker-and the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) knows that as well as the Hon. Member for (Mr. Olivier) or I-is that more and more Canadians prefer going first to an airport south of the American border and take off from there for New York, Las Vegas or Los Angeles, because it is much cheaper. Even a blind man can see that, Mr. Speaker. These are the facts which compel us, as Canadians, to reconsider our domestic air transport policy.
The former minister of transport referred a while ago to Wardair. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is a Wardair fan and so am I, because that company is managed by a man all Canadians should be proud of. What is happening to that company, Mr. Speaker? The former minister knows quite well, and I commend him for the action he took in 1979 and 1980 to ease the regulations, thereby making it possible for Wardair to make more money and to survive. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the current regulations stop Wardair from competing with Air Canada and compel it to charge only charter rates, while over the same routes, Air Canada or any other carrier have two rates, namely, the regular fares and the charter fares. Mr. Speaker, we have to put back a bit of common sense into the system, and it seems to me that our starting point should be the unanimous report drafted by a committee after a serious examination of the problem. This is why I do not share the opinion of the former Minister of Transport in this regard, and why the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) should be congratulated, because he is now looking at that problem and considering our report. As far as I am concerned, the Minister of Transport did not have to wait until the Canadian Transport Commission had completed its study before considering the issue himself. In my opinion, the Minister already had a document to work on, and we should congratulate him. 1 do not understand why the former Minister of Transport refuses to do so. I do not understand him!
It seems quite clear to me that he deserves our congratulations. Besides, what did the former Minister of Transport say? He said that air transport deregulation was inevitable. This is true! It is inevitable, Mr. Speaker, because the present situation is unrealistic. In my opinion, if we succeed in liberalizing air rates, we will see an increase in the number of passengers, of users. Costs will go down and rates should follow suit.
Let us now look at another aspect of our air carrier industry, namely international service. In Canada, international carriers are regulated by bilateral treaties. There is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States, another between Canada and London, another between Canada and India, another between Canada and Germany, and so on. I do not like the fact that the negotiations should take that long. Important bilateral agreements between Canada and the United States which could be extremely useful to Canadian travellers are being negotiated. However, for reasons I find difficult to understand, these negotiations are dragging on, and I would urge the Minister concerned to try and settle the matter as quickly as possible.
Let us now consider another aspect in our transport policy, namely VIA Rail. The former minister often criticized the government for having unilaterally eliminate some Canadian services. I think that it was a hard decision that to be taken for the very survival of VIA Rail. I should explain that. It is
April 6, 1984

obvious, with the obsession of the opposition about deficits, it is essential for Via Rail to rationalize its services. When 1 use such terms, it reminds me of Mr. Bussieres, but VIA Rail would have experienced some troubles if it had not done it. And what does the rationalization of services more specifically means? It means that we had to purchase immediately from the Bombardier company in Canada the cars needed to modernize the equipment of VIA Rail.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that it was quite easy to criticize the very difficult decision taken by the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) to eliminate VIA Rail services. However I have the vague impression, Mr. Speaker, that if the roles had been reversed, that rationalization, although slightly different at first sight, would have been substantially the same. However, the present Minister of Transport is keeping his commitment. What has he done? He has stated that he will review the services which have been eliminated. The former Minister of Transport said of such statements that they are vote-catching manoeuvres. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that doing the right thing cannot be considered electioneering. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be more advisable to alter a questionable decision than to leave it to another government.
Of course, I should like to thank in the first place the member for Vegreville for having given me the opportunity to deal with transport. I think the present Minister of Transport is a rather dynamic minister; his action should be encouraged so that he remains dynamic. He has his department well in hand. He puts forward rigorous user-oriented policies and, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that minister deserves our encouragement; I applaud him unequivocally.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: A ten-minute period is allotted to questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the Hon. Member's contribution to a transportation debate, unlike the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I could never make the charge that he was incompetent or lacked knowledge in the field of transportation because he demonstrates that every time he rises in the House to make a speech or whenever he participates in committee.
I can be very objective when I say complimentary things about the report of the Standing Committee on Transport with respect to domestic air policy in Canada because I was not a member of that committee. I want to echo the words that I have heard in this Chamber before and words that I have uttered earlier stating that the report was a piece of excellent work. Having regard to that, and given the fact that this was such an excellent report, which drew together the opinions and the recommendations not only of the industry but the users and a whole host of other interests, and that it does lay the groundwork for a practical and orderly form of deregulation, could the Hon. Member explain to the House why the present
Supply
Minister and the former Minister of Transport showed such total disrespect for this report? They ignored it. They did not acknowledge it. They did not meet with the Transport Committee nor did they take any positive initiative toward accepting or adopting any of the recommendations. I say that applies both within the confines of the Transport Committee and publicly. The report was totally ignored. As a matter of fact, when the present Minister first started his campaign for deregulation, I do not know whether he realized that this report was in existence. It seems he has just discovered it in the last day or so. But I think it is totally disrespectful of this Minister and of the former Minister to have ignored so blatantly such an excellent piece of work.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the former Minister of Transport, the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), discussed our report with several Members in camera and publicly. I think it is pretty safe for me to say that he did not agree with the principal recommendations. To say that he ignored the report is not accurate. What is important is that the present Minister made a commitment in the Transport Committee to come before us-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When did he discover the report?


Pierre Deniger: He must have discovered it quite shortly after he was appointed, Mr. Speaker, because I brought it to his attention within a week or so. I know he discovered it quite quickly. Again, knowing the firm and sad opposition of the civil servants in the Department, it is not strange that the Minister had to appoint his own task force to look into this report and to report back to the committee in May. Again, we should applaud the Minister.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply and I want to make a few comments. I was interested in a part of the speech made by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), the part that was non-political. But the only people listening to him were those on this side of the House. His own colleagues buried themselves in papers, looked around and talked to each other. At times during our Finance Committee meetings, a committee of which we are both members, the Hon. Member confused me, because I believe he really is a Conservative.
I would like to correct one thing the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) said. He referred to my lack of knowledge on the Crowsnest Pass. He may be right, but I would like to point out that I have far better facilities on this side, along with my colleagues, than he has on that side to find the good and the bad of the Crowsnest Pass. I did some research, and I was able to talk on the Bill. As I said to my wife, I know far more about the Crowsnest Pass than I ever intended to know.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind words. However, I have to remind him that for the first four years of my life in Ottawa, two years with the Canadian Transport Commission and two years with Otto

April 6, 1984
Supply
Lang all 1 heard about was the Crow. For those four years the main and almost sole topic was the Crow.
Indeed, when the Hon. Member associates my way of thinking on this issue with that of the Conservatives, I would beg to put it another way. I brought this topic forward; they agreed with it.
I would like to refer to another dimension which I think is important. Before we started talking about liberalizing or deregulating air fares in the country, air fares were high. It is more than a coincidence now that we have discussed it that major carriers have come out with super seat sales for the elderly, youth and students. Were it not for the work of this House, and the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), and were it not for the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), I doubt that the super seat sales would now be available.
It started with Otto Lang. He was the Minister of Transport who originally opened the charter rules, followed by the Conservative Minister of Transport and then the present Minister. What is important is that if we had not talked about these issues, I firmly believe we would not have the discount fares we now have, and consumers would be the losers.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, just like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) for his speech. In the course of his remarks-

The Hon. Member mentioned the present Minister, and of course I understand the realities of that reference. However, I do not want to be provocative here and I commend the Hon. Member for expressing a real interest in transport here in the House, in his own area and certainly in committee. I would like to ask him a very serious question, and it is the same as the question asked by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in a very non-partisan way, since he was not a member of the committee.
That committee report, to which we have all referred is, as far as I am concerned is the basis for any type of reconsideration or reassessment of this question of deregulation. I would like to refer to an area which is strictly within the competence and discretion of the Minister, and ask a question of the Hon. Member. We have talked about the committee report, and we agree that something has to be done. At least there should be a formal response of some kind to that committee report. It was a unanimous report, with one disclaimer on the part of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who found a little disfavour with it because CPA was there. Basically the report was unanimous. There are other areas within the competence of the Minister such as gas tax, landing fees, and others.
Does the Hon. Member for La Prairie believe honestly, in his heart of hearts, that in order that the Canadian public can believe that the present Minister is serious about deregulation
so that consumers will have lower fares there must not only be reference of the Commons report, but a real downward move in taxes on fuels, landing fees, and the bureaucracy which affects the price of the tickets? Unless we see some movement within the Ministry and within the Government on these areas, we have every right to wonder whether the Minister is being political or is being practical.


Pierre Deniger: The point raised by the Hon. Member is a very serious one and one which has to be looked into as part of the total package. As he knows, the building of major capital projects, whether they be ports, harbours or airports, is based upon a cost recovery aspect. That cost recovery can only be done through the user fee for that present airport. Whether or not one agrees with it, that is the reality.
Indeed, if we want to promote domestic travel in the country, if we want to ensure that our tourism dollar remains in the country, that is a way to do it. I would not remove the airport tax on international flights, nor would I necessarily remove the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax in the Province of Quebec, and I am not familiar with the others, is much higher. The provincial tax is much higher than the federal tax. Regardless of that, the question is a serious one. I would like to see measures taken to enhance domestic travel. If the removal of airport tax is one way to do that, then I would favour it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the
ten-minute period allowed for questions and comments. For debate, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by underlining the importance of the substance of the motion presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). His motion indicates very clearly that a sound national transportation system is essential for economic growth in Canada. I think that statement has to be the basis of this debate. We have to recognize the importance of the transportation system not only to economic growth in Canada but, indeed, to national unity. The tie that binds us throughout the breadth of this land is not simply language and culture, but the method and means of transportation across this great country. I associate the matter of transportation and the industries involved in transportation as important elements in our national process and our national unity.
One of the great features we have in Canada is our ability and capacity to travel to all parts of the nation. That is not so in all parts of the world. Recently I was on a tour of the Middle East and found that one of the things lacking in that ancient culture is an effective transportation system, notwithstanding that the peoples who inhabit that area of the world have a history which goes back over many, many centuries, and have proved their engineering capability in everything from the structures in Egypt to the old cities which exist in Babylon, Jerash in Jordan and other parts of the Middle East. They have proven their engineering capacity, yet they do not have an effective transportation system. Even a journey of 40 miles or 50 miles is fraught with difficulty.
April 6, 1984

We are wise to consider our transportation system, not only in its economic sense but in what it does for all Canadians and for the strength of Canada as a nation. Having said that, I want to point out that that is not an original thought. The purpose behind the modern transportation system is evidenced in the National Transportation Act enacted in 1967. In fact, that National Transportation Act, unlike a great many statutes of Canada, contains a statement of policy. I think it is wise to read it in the context of this debate. The statement of policy is contained in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act and reads:
It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada-
That was a laudable expression of purpose, one which I am sure all Members of Parliament of the day endorsed. That National Transportation Act set up at the same time the Canadian Transport Commission, which had the duty and responsibility to enforce and implement that statement of transportation purpose. The Canadian Transport Commission was endowed with sufficient powers to carry out that mandate under the Act, but there the laudatory part of the exercise stopped.
What happened is that the governments of the day, in 1967 and in subsequent years, allowed the transportation system as supported by the National Transportation Act to become politicized. In short, there was a resort to the old system of patronage in implementing the high purpose of the transportation system. It started on day one. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) reviewed for me the activity that transpired at that time.
As I said, we have this laudatory statement of purpose with relation to the national transportation system. We have the setting up of an elaborate commission, the Canadian Transport Commission, to implement that purpose. What do we do? Right away the politicizing and patronage sets in. A former Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, was made the first Chairman of the CTC.
As my colleague from Annapolis-Valley-Hants pointed out, he was the father of the Bill. One wonders whether he was just setting himself up to take care of his ongoing career once he retired from strict politics. That was not enough. When it came time for him to pass on, he was replaced by another former Liberal Cabinet Minister, Mr. Benson. Today at the head of the Canadian Transport Commission we have another former Liberal Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand. We have a continuing resort to politicization and patronage in our transportation system.
Unfortunately it goes right down the line. It does not stop at the make-up of the CTC. That is why in the late 1970s the Law Reform Commission made an intensive study of the Canadian Transport Commission. I will read their conclusion into the record:
Supply
Like many other regulatory agencies, the Commission has tended to deal with its broad mandate in a piecemeal fashion. It has discharged its responsibilities almost exclusively on a case by case basis, and has, as a result, often allowed itself to lose sight of broader concerns. This along with the allied question of the appropriate relationship between Commission and Ministry appear to be the central weaknesses in the present system.
That statement is as valid in 1984 as it was in 1978. That is the problem with our system. We have a politicized transportation system, aided and abetted by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). They have completely diluted and diverted the laudable statement of purpose in the National Transportation Act, and turned the system into one that benefits the needs of the Liberal Government. It is not directed at the interest and needs of the Canadian economic system, the people of Canada and the regions of this country. That is what we have to fight today. We are not just fighting a system that is outdated and obsolete. We are fighting the operators of that system. Unfortunately, until we get rid of the people who are managing and operating the system, we can have no real hope of change in the system.
The people on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, like the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, worked hard and long to make improvements in the system. They tried to change the legislation and give direction to the system. Their efforts are fruitless as long as the people in charge of the Canadian Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport are not willing to recognize the great national purpose that has to be embedded in our transportation policy, but simply use it for the Government's own ends on a short-term basis. Quick fixes to solve problems, quick fixes to get support in various areas of the country is what is wrong with our system. It will not change until we are able to change the personnel involved in directing the transportation system.
There are a number of matters I would like to bring to the attention of the House with respect to the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. He makes particular reference to marine transportation and marine industries in his motion. I want to talk about that.
First let me say a word about the Maritime Freight Rates Subsidization Program. That program is as vital to the Atlantic area which I represent as the assistance that was given to western Canadian farmers in the agriculture and wheat-growing industry of Canada. Without freight rate subsidization in Atlantic Canada, manufacturers and others dependent upon the transportation system to market their products cannot exist. There was an erosion of that subsidization a couple of years ago. Allegedly there was a tradeoff for road strengthening payments in return for a reduction of the freight rates subsidization. Fortunately that stopped. It has to remain stopped. We have to be vigilant and on guard to ensure there is no more erosion of the freight rate subsidization for the Maritime area. It is of vital importance to manufacturers and shippers in the area to maintain any kind of competitiveness in the national and international markets. We have to be on guard to see that it stays in place. That is exactly the type of thing the Ministry of Transport is capable of doing through

April 6, 1984
Supply
Canadian National and other Crown agencies, forcing higher costs on a particular area of the country without regard to the economic difficulties that can cause.
There is no field of activity in transportation where you see the disastrous effect of Government policies and programs more than in the marine transportation industry. On the face of it, there have been very substantial efforts made by the Government over the past number of years to deal with problems in the marine transportation sector, particularly the switch to Ports Canada, from the National Harbours Board. We have seen other activities related to the National Harbours Board and Ports Canada. Again we have had that misdirection and failure to carry out the national purpose. The move, which we in this Party strongly supported, to have independent national ports across Canada has been weakened in its very inception. Let me explain what transpired leading up to the switch from the National Harbours Board to the Ports Canada setup.
We are not sure even today that this is not just a change in name with the same old personalities remaining in place. I have brought it to the attention of the House on other occasions that the Government started with a debt write-off program. It came forward with $475 million for the write-off of debts. Here is how it was handled. The Port of Montreal wrote off $231 million, almost half the total, in debts. The Port of Halifax, a very important player in the international marine transport deal, wrote off $30 million in debts. This was just prior to the big changeover from the National Harbours Board to the Ports Canada system; $231 million versus $30 million.
We now have Ports Canada. We have independent ports in Montreal, Halifax and in other parts of Canada. Some of those independent ports are a little more independent than others because they do not have the burden of a $230 million debt, yet they have all the facilities that were paid for by that expenditure. The Government told Montreal it had better pile in a lot of facilities, even facilities it did not need and build up debts because it would write them off. It said it would be an independent port in a year or two with no debts, but all kinds of facilities. Poor little second cousins like the Port of Halifax have to go out and build their container piers, charge them up to their own operations and pay for them. That is exactly what is happening today.
In its great generosity, Ports Canada approved the extension of the Fairview Container Pier, to the extent of $25 million- $30 million. Had we had that extension two years ago when we knew it was necessary, we would have received the debt write-off to go with it. We would not have to pay all that money.
There is another important part of marine transportation which is often neglected, and that is shipbuilding. I say you cannot separate the operative transportation side of the marine industry from the shipbuilding side. That is the big mistake we have made in Canada. It has been said that marine transportation is simply ships coming and going. That is wrong. We have very substantial shipbuilding facilities in Canada. It is a large industry in which we can create 15,000 to 28,000 jobs overnight by simply building our own ships for our own transportation needs. That has been totally neglected, not only by the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which established policies through which ships are permitted to enter into national trade, but by all other aspects of Government. For example, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, with the co-operation of these other Departments I have mentioned, could easily exclude non-Canadian ships from activity in our offshore waters. This alone would create massive activity for Canadian shipyards and would create many thousands of jobs.
We are concerned with the lack of any cohesive policy in marine transportation to provide and ensure activity and jobs on the transport side, on the shipbuilding side and on the side of all of the activities related to shipbuilding and marine transport. What do we get, Mr. Speaker? We get the same old patronage and the same old desire to feed at the public trough. What does the new Minister of Transport do? He looks at the new Ports Canada and the other emanations of Ports Canada and local port corporations and sees another opportunity for patronage.
How do you like this, Mr. Speaker? Since 1936, the Auditor General has checked the books of the National Harbours Board. Canada Ports Corporation more than anything else needs a new auditor. Where can we find an auditor to check the books of a corporation that deals with marine matters? We find him in Winnipeg. That is the logical place to find a person who really knows the marine scene. Winnipeg, Manitoba, happens to be the home city of the Minister of Transport. I wonder if there is any connection. So Walter Dubowec-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He is the official agent of the Liberal Party in Manitoba.


Howard Edward Crosby: My colleagues have told me that Walter Dubowec, the man who has been appointed auditor for Ports Canada, is the official agent of the Liberal Party. However, as the official agent of the Liberal Party of Manitoba he has very little to do with this situation, so he should not have any problem taking over these duties. I have a problem with regard to getting rid of the Auditor General.


André Ouellet: What is the name of the firm?


Howard Edward Crosby: Never mind the name of the firm. We got rid of the Auditor General because we are trying to set up Ports Canada, not to run the ports of Canada, not to provide a service, but to be an outlet for more Liberal patronage. That is how shameless the Minister of Transport is. He begins to bring patronage into the one area in which we must have total independence. He attacks that area and appoints a Liberal partisan as Auditor General. How can we complain about any other appointment after that? They just flow like water over Niagara Falls. We are not going to complain about the make up of the Board of Directors of Ports Canada. We are not going to complain when the Minister puts Otto Lang on the
April 6, 1984

Board of Directors of Ports Canada. Otto Lang said: "If you want me, you must have my former assistant as well." So the former assistant was hired as well. The porkbarreling has started.
I would like the porkbarreling to stop in Ottawa; but it comes all the way to Halifax. In Halifax, everyone is interested in this situation. The port is vital to the city. It has been the guardian of the North for 200 years. Halifax has performed that function for 200 years and we finally have an independent port corporation with local autonomy in the management of the port. After 117 years of being classed as a public harbour, since Confederation, we get our own port authority. So who do government Members put on the board of directors of the corporation? Do they put people from each sector of marine transportation on the board? Do they get somebody from the shipping side, somebody from the marine workers, somebody from the ship's chandlers? No, that is not what they do. They get a defeated federal Liberal candidate, a defeated provincial Liberal candidate and a former Member of Parliament who has been retired for many years. This conglomerate of people have only one thing in common. They are partisan supporters of the Liberal Party. They are the ones who are going to manage the Port of Halifax. No wonder we will be in trouble.
I wanted to speak of the real challenge to our transportation system of the future. That challenge is deregulation. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville has pointed out, the question of deregulation has arisen in respect of the air transportation industry. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that that is one area in which we will not stand for any quick fixes by the Minister of Transport. We will not let him pretend to the airline consumers of Canada that they will get a lower ticket price if they follow his deregulation policy, because we know what that will cost. It will cost thousands of jobs. Air Canada has 20,000 employees and I know that some Air Canada flight attendants have already lost their jobs right across Canada. In the Riding of Halifax West alone, 80 such jobs have been lost. I would like to point out to the Minister of Transport that when he is talking about deregulation, he is talking about lost jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. A 10-minute question or comment period will be allowed.


Pierre Deniger: I listened with interest to the speech delivered by my colleague. When dealing with air transport deregulation, he contended that jobs will be lost. I do not see how he can come to such a conclusion since in the United States where drastic deregulation is now taking place, the number of jobs in the air transportation industry has gone up from 292,000 to
307,000.	Then how can he make such a statement?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty explaining that. We have an entirely different airline transportation system in Canada. In the first place, our immense major
Supply
carrier is an agency of the Government of Canada. Air Canada is simply a Crown corporation. It does not have to worry about profits because its financial future is ensured. It may be that the President of Air Canada, Mr. Taylor, takes it upon himself to try to show a profit, but we do not know if he shows a profit in private industry terms. He can charge, or not charge, or do what he wants. He has no investors and is not involved in the stock exchange. He has no outside auditors so he does what he wants.
The point is that Air Canada accounts for a large percentage of the entire Canadian airline activity nationally and internationally. The reason for that, of course, is that it has a mandate and obligation to provide air services at various points and frequencies. That sets the stage for our entire airline industry. In Canada, we have an airline industry that is not only in business but is in business with a duty and a responsilitity. When we talk about deregulation, we cannot abandon the duty and responsibility that exists. We cannot simply say that it is not profitable to fly an aircraft between Halifax and Lredericton or between Saint John, New Brunswick, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
The Hon. Member has given himself away because Montreal, Toronto and areas like that are not affected by a potential deregulation process, as are remote areas like the Maritimes and some parts of western Canada. My point is that whereas deregulation in highly populated areas like New York and Chicago may result in greater airline activity between those points, with increasing employment following on that, we are dealing with an entirely different concept in Canada. We have a different quality of passenger and, indeed, other different airline services, and we must maintain those services.
If the Minister of Transport is suggesting a deregulation which would allow Air Canada or Eastern Provincial Airways to abandon routes between Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick, then I am entirely opposed to it. Even if the deregulation is simply a process that will allow for one less flight attendant, one less pilot, one less safety inspector, one less ground maintenance person and one less agent at the counter, I am not in favour of it unless it can be demonstrated that there is a clear advantage in terms of passenger rates to justify that loss of jobs and activity. If I am able to pay less for an airline ticket but have to pay more in taxes to provide welfare and other payments, I do not see where I as a consumer, or where any other Canadian has gained one thing.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Hon. Member opposite does not know at all what deregulation is. First of all, I would like to make it quite clear that when we talk about deregulation, we never talk about safety. Safety will not be deregulated. What we are talking of is a lessening of the rules of entry, exist and setting fares. Sefety will never be deregulated because in itself safety has to be regulated.
Second, I am surprised when the Hon. Member says that Air Canada does not have to worry about profits. If he had been present at the Transport Committee which considered the

April 6, 1984
Supply
Air Canada Act, he would know that, I believe Clause 2, or Clause 3 says specifically that Air Canada has to worry about profit and must conduct itself as if it were a company involved in business.


Howard Edward Crosby: How come it lost $65 million?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I moved the amendment.


Pierre Deniger: It was the amendment of the Tory Party, which was logical. The third point I want to raise with the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is that if I was from Halifax and I am from Montreal-I would not want decisions involving the aircraft I use, the fares I pay, and the service I receive, to be imposed by a regulatory agency in Ottawa or in Hull. I would like the people in my province to have some say in the matter. That is precisely what we are offering and precisely what our domestic air policy is saying. We are saying that the consumer, the user, will have more say in the policy. I trust the consumers a lot more than 1 trust people who do not live in the area, in my region, making decisions for me. 1 am especially surprised at the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). We sat together on the regulatory reform committee where we unanimously presented a paper which dealt with reforms of regulations. He seems to have forgotten that report.


Howard Edward Crosby: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten the report. However, I believe there is a great deal of confusion present in the House in relation to the remarks made by my colleague. We are talking, 1 believe, about different kinds of deregulation. The Hon. Member, as I understand his last intervention, is talking about the domestic air carrier policy approved by the Standing Committee on Transport. 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member very simply, does the Minister of Transport endorse that report? Is he prepared to put it into operation? Because on the advice of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, and on the advice of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, I would endorse that, plain and simply. That is the way to do it. But from the information I have, and I do not have the time or opportunity to go through it in detail, that is not the kind of deregulation the Minister of Transport is talking about.
We had a meeting which was graced by the presence of the Hon. Member for Vegreville the other day in which we discussed statements made by the Minister of Transport on deregulation. They bear no relationship to this report. He has never endorsed this report. He has never said he is prepared to implement, as part of deregulation or other policy, the recommendations of this report. He has just got a quick fix attitude, take the controls off air fares and the first airline approaching bankruptcy will knock down its air fares in order to buoy itself up, get some cash flow going, then the next outfit will start to go bankrupt. That is what happened in the States.
Braniff Airlines was one of the most effective airlines in the United States. The airlines got into a price war and now it is out of business. Braniff is gone today. That is what will happen. EPA will go, then Quebecair will go, under the
proposals of the Minister of Transport. And most importantly, jobs will go. That is what I am saying.
Yes, I am in favour of deregulation. The Hon. Member knows that because, as he said, we sat together on the regulatory reform committee. It is important for the Canadian economy. However, it is more important to proceed in an orderly fashion in determining just what are the elements in the regulation policy which can be changed effectively, and changing those elements. We should not simply take the controls off the ticket prices and let the market prevail, because what we will end up is a lot of people flying back and forth for a few months and then a lot of bankrupt airlines. We already know what happened in the United States and we do not want that to happen in Canada.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Hon. Member. It concerns shipbuilding in Canada. It is one of my favourite subjects and I understand it is also one of his. It just so happens, Sir, that I was having supper with a ship owner last night. He was having a ship building offshore. The price of this vessel will be some $8 million. Being a good patriotic Canadian he wanted to have this vessel built in Canada. But I believe the cheapest price he could get in Canada was nearly double, some $15 million.
From my conversation with him it appeared that one of the reasons he could get the ship built a lot cheaper offshore was that foreign governments extend credit at low rates and perhaps even subsidize their own shipyards. It seems to me that if the price is doubled in Canada, you are not going to sell very many ships out of Canadian shipyards to Canadians. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any solutions to this very difficult problem faced by our shipyards?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Unfortunately, this puts an end to the ten-minute question period and we are resuming debate at this point.


Howard Edward Crosby: I do not have an opportunity to respond?


Dave Nickerson: On unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to complete his answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I heard no. Debate.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, today I find it very difficult to understand why the Opposition moved this motion. After listening to my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House this morning and after reading several times over the motion that was moved, which mentions contradictory statements which have created
April 6, 1984

uncertainty and confusion in the transportation industry, I really wonder what possessed the Official Opposition to present such a motion. Earlier, I was even more surprised when I heard the Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) say that the present Government was appointing Liberals to a number of positions within the Canadian Transport Commission and the Government itself. Mr. Speaker, I realize they are upset, but what is the alternative if all the competent people who are best suited for these duties happen to be in the Liberal Party? We are certainly not going to avoid appointing them because they are Liberals. The Government has always insisted on selecting the best candidates and the best people available when filling vacancies in the Federal Public Service. I realize this may upset our friends opposite, but they cannot expect us to penalize people who are suitable for these positions just because they are Liberals. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is too bad that the Official Opposition feels that our present Minister of Transport has created confusion in the transportation industry in Canada. In the few moments I have left, I shall try to tell the House that in one sector in particular, and I am referring to the railway transport sector contrary to what our hon. friends opposite would have us believe, the Minister, since his appointment, has taken some very brave decisions aimed at avoiding any confusion that might exist and at proving the Canadian Government's commitment to a transport mode that is both indispensable and very convenient for many of our fellow citizens across this country.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize that with respect to the railway transport system, the Government has made commitments and has promised to meet them. It will make this kind of transportation safer and more efficient across this country. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, while meeting this commitment, the Minister of Transport has also informed Canadians that we would have more and better quality service. I think we have every reason to be pleased that the new Minister of Transport has made this commitment.
I can assure you that people in regions of the country where there are no means of transport other than the railway will be the first to admit that the decisions made in the past and those which will be made in the coming months serve the best interests of all Canadians.
If we really want to talk about the rail transportation system, Mr. Speaker, I think we should turn back the pages of history to have an overview of what happened in that field. I think that we have been witnessing tremendous changes within our transportation system since 1977. Still, one must admit that the Canadian railway network was not built overnight. I am convinced that in the next few years, people will come to realize that, in a large country such as ours and with all the regions we want to have rail service, it is extremely difficult to improve everything in one day or even in one year.
We have to take into consideration the regional disparities and the land irregularities of our country, and remember that
Supply
the railway represent a link in the history of Canada. That is indeed what prompted Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia to join the Canadian Confederation. All those facts prove that people across Canada are very fond of that transportation system and that many Canadians are looking forward to improvements.
Today, Mr. Speaker, a delegation from my own riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine arrived here in Ottawa to attend an important conference and, of course, they came by train. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the people who know very well that the Government has to upgrade the system. I have had an opportunity to discuss that issue with them and to work with them on the various changes we want to make in the system.
Of course, the railroads have had enormous problems since 1885, but we certainly chose the right solution in 1976 when we created VIA Rail and made it responsible for all passenger rail service. We must also remember, Mr. Speaker, that, in 1958, automobiles accounted for 87 per cent of all passenger transportation in Canada. We must therefore take some action to convince the public that automobiles may not be the safest and the most economical means of travel.
After creating VIA Rail in 1976, the Government had to deal with many problems. The Government decided to rationalize railway passenger service and minimize the costs in that area. This is why, in 1983, the total operating subsidies allotted to VIA Rail amounted to just $451 million, a mere 4.5 per cent increase over the previous year, which was far less than the rate of inflation.
In my opinion, those figures clearly show that the decision made by the Canadian Government in 1976 was the right one and that we are really on the way to improving this transportation service.
As I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker, we also had to provide a dependable service all across Canada. This is why, as my colleague for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) was saying a while ago, the Minister of Transport has decided to rehabilitate certain lines and, most importantly, to develop the Quebec-Windsor corridor. Of course, VIA Rail is making a major effort to provide a good serivce in this corridor, without however neglecting other lines and other areas in Canada. As I was saying, the railroad helped to unite this country, and we must now make sure that the service will continue to exist in 1984 and in future years. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the railways must serve the public, not just the business sector. This is the direction this Government wants to take and this is what the Minister of Transport has done to improve our transportation services and make train travel more attractive to the Canadian public in all our regions.
Finally, I believe that we have to realize that the social and political factor plays a very important role in the way people choose their means of travel. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is extremely difficult to assess the efficiency or the perform-

April 6, 1984
Supply
ance of a transportation service if we look only at the figures. As I was saying earlier, we have to convince the people that this is an effective and safe means of travel. This is of course what the Government and the Minister of Transport want to do.
As I have already said, the Minister has also indicated in recent months that service on some lines will have to be restored because people have found out how much they miss it since it has been discontinued. As you know, it is often very difficult to realize the usefulness of something we have. This is why the Winnipeg-Edmonton line will be restored as well as the Edmundston-Moncton line. In my own region, the Gaspe peninsula, there have been many changes in recent years and certain lines had been abandoned or replaced by others, but wherever we have maintained our railway service we want to continue such operations since our region is vast and sparsely populated.
Mr. Speaker, as we can see, some progress has been made, but much remains to be done. I believe that the key factor is the modernization of VIA Rail facilities and equipment. If we want to have some credibility, we must first of all have rolling stock which will meet our needs, and adequate tracks over which this rolling stock may be used as it should.
I would like to recall a few of this Government's major achievements. As far as capital investment is concerned, we have to remember that, since 1977, the Government has invested $785 million across Canada. Another $307 million were invested recently in maintenance facilities in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. These facilities will help us save $50 million by 1988. In addition, the Federal Government has approved and developed a new type of train at a cost of $32 million. This new material will be tested within the next two years. This demonstrates again that we should look to the future as far as this mode of transport is concerned and that we should adjust to the new technologies.
The federal and Ontario governments have announced that they are co-operating on the design, development and construction of a two-storey train which should be ready for Expo 1986. Moreover, a plan for the development of a bus-on-rail prototype is at the final stage of certification. This new vehicle will be tested in northern Manitoba in 1984-85. A second contract for the purchase of ten locomotives and 50 LRC wagons was signed recently. These vehicles will be put into service sometime next year.
VIA Rail is planning to invest over $800 million in various new projects before the end of this decade. Of that amount, about half will be used to update the rolling stock, the rest being spent to improve the infrastructure. This demonstrates once more that this government is unreservedly committed to making rail passenger transport a service which is viable, reliable and which will meet the needs of tomorrow.
Also, Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail has agreed to improve its services. It is doing more than just trying to improve the
infrastructure and update the material. It is taking the necessary steps to shorten the travelling time on a number of lines, so as to prevent the repetition of unfortunate incidents which occurred this winter in our region as a result of heavy snow storms and very bad weather. It is also trying to streamline its railway stations, because it is when travellers enter a railway station that they have their first contact with this mode of transport. For instance, in 1983, the federal government committed itself to renovating the Quebec City's "Gare du Palais". It will allow a direct service between downtown Quebec City and downtown Montreal. This project has met with the approval of numerous organisations and the general public. Also, work will be done on the Union Station, in Toronto, as well as on many other stations throughout the country. I would like to mention as well the stations located in my own area of Gaspesie. There are now 26 stations on the Quebec-Gaspe route, hence 26 stops. For the last four years, elected representatives together with various regional organisations have been working to rationalize the transportation network. A fair amount of work has already been done in this regard, mostly in Gaspesie but not in the Lower St. Lawrence area. The number of stations will be reduced from 22 to 13, thus eliminating stops and improving the average speed of the trains.
Many improvements have also been brought forward in the quality of services on the train. This work will be pursued and I am confident that within the next decade, we will all be able to enjoy the new interior design of railway cars, the improved service to travellers both in the trains and in the stations, the improved telephone service; in fact, every aspect of the service will be enhanced.
These improvements, Mr. Speaker, will enable VIA Rail to experience a 36 per cent increase in the number of passengers and a 72 per cent increase in its revenue between 1984 and 1989. So it is obvious that VIA Rail is determined to take necessary measures in order to give the travelling public a meaningful choice, to enable Canadians who must travel to choose a means of transportation which is affordable and meets all their needs.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention another important fact, that is the extremely interesting initiative taken by the Minister of Transport in February. I am thinking about the lower rail rates for young people and senior citizens. This new program will enable young people to buy rail passes valid for various periods of time.
The rate for senior citizens is valid for all VIA routes without any exception or time restriction. Again, these new programs fulfill the commitments taken by this Government in the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that since VIA Rail has been established in 1976, we have gone a long way. Of course, we still have a long way to go; however, the initiatives that have been taken both by VIA and by this Government demonstrate that we are going in the right direction.
April 6, 1984


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


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member was reading his speech. I did not want to interrupt him to bring this to your attention. On February 5 you insisted on bringing to order the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). It would seem to me that what is right for this side of the House should also be right for the other side of the House. I hope you would enforce the rules of the House with a reasonable degree of consistency. However, my question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair is grateful to the Hon. Member for trying to bring to the attention of any presiding officer what is happening in the House. However, it is probably more worthwhile to do this while it is happening. To do it after the fact is not of great use.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is not a great deal of use to bring it to the attention of the presiding officer even in the course of the occurence.
My question to the Hon. Member is in regard to the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, and perhaps more particularly to the Toronto-Montreal section of that corridor. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the Hon. Member had to say about the amount of money that is being spent by VIA Rail on upgraded facilities. Most of it appeas to be for fairly minor modifications to existing facilities.
Does the Hon. Member think that putting a high speed electrified train between Toronto and Montreal, may be passing through Ottawa, with a dedicated track along the lines of what they have in Japan and France, is a good idea in this area of dense population with a great number of travelling members of the public? Has the Government ever looked at the economic feasibility and the cost of that idea?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to tell the Hon. Member who said that I was reading from notes that when it comes to statistics, we can hardly be expected to know all the figures off hand, and I would like to tell the Hon. Member that when he has travelled by train in his riding as often as I did in mine, then maybe we will be able to compare our statistics in this regard.
As to his proposal of an electrically powered train, obviously, any possibility can be considered. However, I suggest it is not realistic to compare passenger trains in Canada and in Japan or in Europe. If one looks at the size of our territory and the size and location of our population and draws comparisons with what can be found in Japan or even in European countries, it is like comparing apples and oranges. There is no possible comparison in this regard since our respective population and territory are so different. A minute ago, I was making a brief history of railways in Canada; well, one would have to
Supply
examine also the history of railways in Europe and consider the notion people have in these countries in the area of transport. That is the main difference and the conclusion we would reach as to the possibility of having an electrically powered railway connecting Toronto and Montreal and possibly Ottawa as well. This shows, once again, that we are ready to upgrade the rail transportation services, and I read press clippings on that just this week. Surely the government is ready to consider all the possibilities but, as I said, I would like that extreme caution be taken when comparing rail services in Canada with those in other countries because we are definitely not talking about the same thing.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member if the Government which he represents has discussed deregulation as it pertains to the use of airports? I heard the Minister saying how deregulation will help airports that are having financial problems such as Mirabel, for which projections in the Budget indicate it will lose $50 million.
Have discussions taken place within Government and has consideration been given to deregulating an airport? For example, could there be a toll-free type of airport which might encourage carriers to use that airport as opposed to any other airport in order to attract airlines, such as People's Express, that are reaping the benefits of Canadian travellers who leave from Burlington, Vermount, to other areas in the United States at very reduced airfares? Have any discussions taken place? When I hear the Minister talking about deregulation helping Mirabel, I am suspicious that this may be what he is referring to. Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, obviously, as far as regulation is concerned, the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is discussing all the possibilities with his colleagues to the South. As for deregulating the airports, it could obviously be a solution in a sense. What he just said is true, some of our fellow Canadians go to Burlington to catch a plane. Today at noon, some people from my own riding told me that they had done just that. If that is a solution that could be considered because it could solve a number of problems in some of our airports, we will surely be pleased to discuss it. As for this matter of deregulation, we should keep in mind that what we want is to allow the greatest number of Canadians to have access to air travel, at more reasonable rates than those charged in my area; indeed to fly from Magdalen Islands to Montreal you have to pay an outrageous $600 for a return fare.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The subject of transportation in the Opposition motion which we are debating this afternoon is very important for consideration by Canadians in terms of air transportation, rail grain transportation, VIA Rail

April 6, 1984
Supply
and Marine transportation. I suggest it is significant to note the past actions of the Government and how the Minister in charge has been dealing with transportation in Canada.
It seems that the pattern of the Liberal Goverment in the past 15 years has been that just before an election it makes great promises of rebuilding, restructuring and job creation. However, once the election is over the next thing that happens is that the Government begins to impose cuts. The records will show that this has been the case. In 1981 the Minister promised action but then imposed a cut of $1 billion and then another of $2 billion. This situation has been repeated several times. The fact is that the present Government makes promises and then breaks them. I am sorry that there are so few Liberals in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister is not here.


Leonard J. Gustafson: And the Minister is not here. I believe that the public is fed up with this kind of cheap politics. I can give examples of this, one of which occurred just two days ago. Our Leader stood in the House to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he would put into place a formula in the Western Grain Stabilization, for which we have been asking for two years and which the Government has been promising for two years. Mark my words, the Liberal Government will play politics with the Western Grain Stabilization Program just as it has been playing politics with the transportation system.
I can give another example. Fuel is very important to transportation in agriculture. In as many elections as I can remember the Liberals have promised tax cuts on fuel before an election, but we know what happens after an election. To the contrary, the provincial government in Saskatchewan promised tax cuts on fuel for farmers and for the province as a whole. The day after Mr. Grant Devine was elected in the Province of Saskatchewan the provincial fuel tax was removed completely. That is just as he promised. That is the type of government responsibility that the taxpayers, the producers and other Canadians are looking for.
My main area of concern is Western Grain Transportation as it relates to the promises that were made just recently in Bill C-155. The Minister took it upon himself to remove one of the traditions of this country and bring in a new program. It is becoming quite evident that the Government's promise to deliver the goods for this program are not being met.
Let me quote from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Before doing so, I might say that the House of Canadians will remember, as western farmers do, that in a short period he put into place certain measures in grain transportation and rail development across western Canada that were absolutely remarkable, especially in the limited time he had to accomplish that. Let there be no suggestion that the job cannot be done.
Let me point out something else. The Conservative Party, which understands very well the plight of the western farmer and the importance of transportation, is dedicated to upgrading the system. Make no mistake about that. While the
Minister rose earlier today and said that the Conservatives are always dragging their feet in these areas, the absolute opposite is true. We want the upgrading and we want the direction, but we do not want false promises that are not kept. Politicking with this very important matter of grain transportation is unacceptable.
A news release of March 27, stated:
'The $16.5 billion of investment and 375,000 jobs promised by the Liberal Government as a result of the Western Rail Expansion Program will not fully materialize' said Don Mazankowski, P.C. Spokesman on Transportation.
-the Minister of Transport and the railroads have admitted that the level of investment will be reduced.
Yesterday, April 5, the Hon. Member for Vegreville issued a press release indicating exactly what happened in committee that day. Let me read it into the record:
The federal government is betraying western farmers by permitting a $4 billion drop in western rail investment-
Transport Canada officials appearing before the transport committee today confirmed that the railway investment will drop to $12.5 billion over the next ten years, a 25 per cent reduction-
It would appear to me that the Government has made a move to increase freight rates to farmers and now makes a move to renege on its responsibilities concerning upgrading. Again and again in the House we heard about all the jobs this was going to create. I want to clarify once more that we on this side of the House are in favour of creating jobs.
With unemployment at the rate it is today we are absolutely against mismanagement and irresponsible spending on the part of the Government, such as the Government spending $4 million advertising programs that are not taking place. Jobs certainly should be put in place. Production should go up. Something should happen as a result of those jobs and rail lines should be rehabilitated. But does this happen? No. I call this irresponsibility to a great degree. The producers, the farmers, are certainly concerned about the transportation of their grain. But freight rates are being increased. The Government has cut back and reneged on its promises, and it would only be fair to say, "let's cut freight rates". But we know such is not the case. What we have in transportation are more promises, more promises, and more promises, and neglect of obligations that many times seem written in stone. I suppose I am a novice Member having been here such a few years.


Pierre Deniger: Too long.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Someone says "too long". Maybe that is possible.
Before being elected to the House of Commons I sat on a rural council. When something was written into the minutes of that rural council you could pretty well count on it. There were no open envelopes for expenditure. A budget was brought down and when it came down the amount of money contained in it was the amount of money you spent. The amount was not doubled, nor was it tripled. What kind of responsibility would it be on the part of any rural or urban councillor to increase
April 6, 1984

spending to the taxpayers of a community? You could depend on them.
I thought the level of responsibility in this senior place of government would be much more efficient. But I found out, much to my dismay, that because of the direction of 16 years of Liberal Government there is very little responsibility with regard to commitments, either made to the people or even written in stone, as it were.
Rehabilitation of rail lines should go ahead. Nothing is more important. In terms of grain and grain transportation some $6 billion were added to the balance of payments. That is important to the welfare of farmers, but it is more important to the welfare of the whole country to do something positive. The Government should do something positive instead of picking up broken pieces of bad business obligations with which it gets encumbered from time to time.
I would like to speak for a moment about the area of rail line abandonment, particularly as it relates to my riding. It is only fair to say that farms in other areas experience the same type of problem. We had hearings at Rockglen, concerning the Big Beaver-Coronach line, some over a year ago. At that time we raised with the CTC the issue of the lines involving Big Beaver to Coronach, the Avonlea-Parry line and other lines. I raised in writing with the Minister the importance of maintaining the Big Beaver-Coronach line. On two occasions I raised the matter with him in committee. When Mr. Mar-chand, the President of the Canadian Transportation Commission, appeared I raised once more the concern of this rail line. I must say good attention was paid. I even think the letters were read, but 1 must say we have not been getting any answers.
Consider yourself, Mr. Speaker, living in Big Beaver, Saskatchewan. From Big Beaver to Coronach is 20 miles and it is up-hill all the way. Let me suggest you had a three-ton truck, a 1957 Chevy and its motor was not too good.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And you have a blow-out.


Leonard J. Gustafson: You are heading for town, up hill at 30 miles an hour in second gear, and you have a blow-out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. It is so serious it is laughable. I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers along that line are very concerned.
We have been getting the same kind of answers from a very neglectful Government and Minister. The transport portfolio is probably one of the most important in the Parliament of Canada. Transportation is very important to a Canada that stretches thousands of miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the 49th parallel to the Arctic. It is most important to the survival of a people who have to compete in international markets, especially when you have the type of irresponsible approach that we have seen in past days. I am absolutely astounded that this is beginning to happen so quickly and that the Government should renege on its responsibilities with
Supply
regard to rail line rehabilitation and rebuilding. Certainly it is a most important matter which should be dealt with.
What situations are created by abandoning a rail line such as the Big Beaver-Coronach line? I think we have to take several matters into consideration. First, it devalues the land. Certainly that is important to farmers who have to compete in an economic sense with other farmers. In addition there are fuel costs. We cannot look at transportation unless we look at fuel costs.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They have doubled.


Leonard J. Gustafson: This is significant because if we go back to December 13, 1979 we were defeated on an 18-cent gasoline tax. Our government made the mistake of being honest; that is the only way I can put it. At that time we said that the gasoline tax would be increased by 18 cents. After being defeated I returned home and I must say I was somewhat disappointed. We were in for eight or nine months and then we were out. I drove into a filling station in the little Town of Macoun and I asked what was the price of gas. I filled up my tank at a cost of 92 cents per gallon. Just the other day 1 telephoned that same filling station in that little town and was told that the cost of fuel was $1.80 per gallon. Do Hon. Members remember the promise of the Liberals? They said they would not increase it more than the 18 cents the Conservatives had suggested. Gasoline prices and fuel costs to farmers have doubled in four years. It is just another example.
How does this relate to transportation? Its relationship is very simply, because it costs twice as much today to fill up a truck with gas to haul grain to the elevator so that it can be put on world markets. Certainly fuel costs are of concern. The cost of the gas moving from the City of Regina down to Plentywood, Montana-and there are semi-truckloads of gas going down there every day-is 78 cents per gallon. That tells us how much federal tax we have on fuel in this country.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is up. No subject is more important to Canada, especially to our farmers, than western grain transportation. If anyone honestly looks at the facts as they exist, he will realize that the Government has been very neglectful in its responsibilities and in keeping its promises to the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there questions or comments related to the remarks of the hon. gentleman? The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to get this entirely straight in my mind. Did I gather from the speech of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) that he still has one or two small doubts about the Liberal western grain transportation policy?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, in answering that question let me say I really wish that I had only one or two small doubts. I have some grave concerns about the Liberal program for

April 6, 1984
Supply
western Canadian transportation. It has become very clear that the Liberal Government has no intention of keeping its election promises, promises of jobs which will not come about, promises of moneys to be spent that will not be spent, and promises in terms of rehabilitating the lines which we will never see come to fruition.
I would like to add with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding during the 1980 election campaign the Prime Minister announced in Fillmore, Saskatchewan, assisted by Ralph Goodale who was then running for office, that he would doubletrack the line all the way from Winnipeg to Vancouver. As any farm boy or as anyone who lives in the Prairies can tell us, years ago there used to be a train every 20 minutes on that track. Certainly there are areas where we need doubletrack through the mountains and through congested areas. We have received these promises but we have not seen them fulfilled. I have some grave doubts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Any further questions or comments? We are resuming debate.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as Parliamentary Secretary, to be speaking for the very first time to a motion by the Official Opposition, which would have the Canadian people believe that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), has failed to fulfil his commitments to Canadians. The Minister, however, is a worthy successor to previous Liberal Ministers, and I am referring to the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin and the Hon. Otto Lang. I also wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Manzan-kowski), who was Minister of Transport for a short nine months and who decided that he would have to maintain, extend and even safeguard certain measures that had been initiated by his predecessor, the Hon. Otto Lang, and I am referring especially to the deregulation of air transport.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the day, we have heard about various types of transportation in Canada, and as was said by the previous speaker on the opposite side, air transport in Canada is a very broad issue that affects all of us at some time in our lives, and not only air transport but also railway and marine transport, and also the entire network of safeguards provided by the Canadian Government for each of these modes of transport.
I may remind the House that at the beginning of the day, in replying to the Hon. Member for Vegreville, the Minister of Transport stressed his responsibilities and how he dealt with them, whether they were in the field of job creation or developing a transportation policy.
We also heard, on the Government side, the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), who spoke more specifically about air transport, which he did very ably, I must say, and I
wish to thank him. I feel his contribution to the debate was very constructive and very informative for those of us and those of the general public who had the privilege of listening to him.
More particularly, I would like to point out that the Member for La Prairie tried to clarify the need for the deregulation policy which the Government would like to see implemented and which is now being studied by the Canadian Transport Commission, following a report produced by the Standing Committee on Transport which did a very thorough job.
During committee sittings I had the privilege of attending several meetings with witnesses from all over North America, that is, both in Canada and the United States, who told us about their experience in this area.
I think that the Hon. Member for La Prairie has been quite clear on this matter, when he said that the deregulation being considered by the Canadian Transport Commission, that is the Air Transport Committee, during its present hearings means some form of deregulation with regard to the routes served by airlines and to air transportation rates.
Deregulation has nothing to do with air safety. As the Hon. Member for La Prairie so rightly said, safety must obviously be very strictly regulated for the protection of air passengers. The importance of this matter has been clearly demonstrated. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) has dealt with rail transportation. In this regard, there are two separate areas, namely passenger service, to which the Hon. Member for Bonaventure referred at length, as well as the improvements that have been made and that will be made in future. There is as well freight transportation and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the main problem relates to the upgrading of rail service now under way in Western Canada for the transportation of grain and freight in general.
After all the discussions on this matter and the many assurances that have been given, and in view of the fact that some major projects have already undertaken in that part of Canada, I do not understand that my hon. friends of the Official Opposition have not realized yet that this is a serious matter and certainly not some election promise. Work has already started and should be completed on schedule within about ten years, that is around 1992. At that time, there will be a second tunnel through the Rocky Mountains and most railways will be double-tracked. Therefore, as I already said and I want to repeat it, this is not some election promise, because these developments were promised when the Crow's Nest rates were under consideration. Work has begun, and the two railway companies involved, CN and CP, are fulfilling the commitments they made, and each year, under the legislation, those commitments will be reviewed by the Canadian Transport Commission which will see to it that the promised subsidies are paid, provided that the commitments made are
April 6, 1984

honoured and that the planned development of rail transportation in the western part of the country is carried out.
A Tory colleague, the Elon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), has dealt with another point. It had to do with marine transportation, the maritime services that are available to Canadians, more particularly shipbuilding activities in Canadian shipyards. With respect to the works in the larger ports, my colleague from Halifax West has referred more specifically to his own area, something I can understand and for which I am grateful to him, because that made me realize that the improvements that are being done in the port of Halifax, more particularly on grain elevators, at a cost of $5.1 million, will be completed in 1984, apart from the extension of the port of Halifax, at a cost of a little more than $25 million. But I do not think he mentioned the important project involving the construction of a potash terminal in Kootenay Bay, in Saint John, New Brunswick. This work will require outlays of about $28.4 millions.
He did speak about the shipbuilding industry in Canada, but he claimed that nothing much was being done. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, to leave the Canadian people under the impression that shipyards are getting no help whatsoever from the Federal Government which could not care less about the shipbuilding industry. In fact, the Canadian Government will pay close to $700 million, over four years, for the building of 11 new ships, the upgrading of three others, and the acquisition of some smaller crafts built in Canada of course.
This program will both enhance the fleet and create quite a number of jobs, close to 20,000 person-years in Canada during that period and above all, it will allow the upgrading of the Coast Guard, fishing and marine fleets. Obviously, some of these boats will be used also for exploration and development of offshore resources.
Moreover, a very extensive program has been created requiring about $185 million in investments, in order for the Coast Guard to better discharge its duties relative to icebreaking and navigation assistance and to continue more efficiently with its search and rescue activities, when required.
I just want to come back for one minute, Mr. Speaker and I hope that you will allow me to read my text because of the very difficult names of these shipyards to the contracts awarded up until now, for the building of the ships I mentioned earlier. Marine Industries Limited, in Quebec, will build two class 1100 ships. Burrard Yarrow Corporation, in British Columbia, will also build two ships of that category; Colling-wood Shipyards in Ontario will build one, Halifax Industries Limited in Nova Scotia one also besides updating the Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Vito of Vancouver, British Columbia, will build a class 1050 ship. Port Arthur Shipbuilding in Ontario will build five barges. Chedabucto Shipwrights Limited, in Nova Scotia, will build three LCM class barges and Hurum Marine Limited, in Quebec, which, Mr. Speaker, is better known in our area as Verrault Navigation, will build three
Supply
working vessels. To this list must be added all ship updating and maintenance contracts to be granted to Canadian shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, it would take until tomorrow to deal with the services offered by Transport Canada and the efforts that are made to try to improve quality. But it is impossible and I should like to correct some statements made by members of the Official Opposition in particular about certain services supposedly neglected. And I also wish to deal briefly again with the issue of railway transportation. The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine mentioned some problems arising only in one part of the Province of Quebec where the train, for instance, must stop in 26 stations, placing VIA Rail in the position of having to provide maintenance services in those communities, and he also told us about the modernization program which has been implemented by the stations and railways to improve and speed up services.
If I remember well, he then said when emphasizing up the quality of the development program for VIA Rail services; "we shall do a good job but that will require a lot of our time". I think he added very appropriately that Paris was not built in one day.
The same is true for all transport needs and services in Canada, both for air and maritime services. If I were willing to be less responsible, I could say, as was done by the official Opposition, that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is rather negligent in carrying his responsibilities. If I were negligent or irresponsible, I could try to make Canadians believe everything can be done in one day. But I would not dare, because that has been proven impossible. Furthermore, I would never dare make the Canadian people believe that it does not take time to do those things, because they must be done well, because changes must be brought after consultation, as the Minister of Transport said this morning, and as 1 am rather a responsible member on the government side, I would never dare promise the moon when I could not even give the first quarter. It appears to me today that, according to the comments of the official Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to a large extent, they tried to promise the moon to the Canadian people, knowing that they could not even give the first quarter. It was demonstrated in the few months they were in power that the official Opposition party did not understand, certainly not as well as this government, the needs of the Canadian people. It is grossly unfair to state here that all the proposed changes to our air transportation service and all improvements made to our railway system are electoral or irresponsible promises.
I have been here for four years now and I have been on important committees such as the Agriculture and Transport committees and we did, indeed, discuss the very matters that concern us today, that is the transportation of grain in West-

April 6, 1984
Supply
ern Canada and the commitments and responsibilities of the Government of Canada to the people of that part of our country. Our commitments will be fulfilled, our transportation system will be improved but any reduction in the financing of these programs which had been discussed at length two days ago, could jeopardize the government plans. I thought that matter was settled once for all but it cropped up again today even though the situation now is quite different from what it was in 1981-82. However, Mr. Speaker, that exercise did serve a useful purpose because Canadians will be aware, from what has been said today on the government and the official Opposition sides that there is quite a gap between a responsible government and opposite members who would readily promise all sorts of goodies without being able to give any. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments on the remarks of the Hon. Member? [English]
We shall resume debate.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue and I commend the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for having brought it to the attention of the House today, and hence to the attention of the people of Canada. I wish to speak to the issue as a westerner, as a Manitoban and as someone who is an historian and very familiar with the history of the West and with the neglect of western Canadians during the many years the Liberal Party has been in power.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps some of those on the other side of the House will, deep in their hearts, even regret the fact that one Party has been in power for 51 of the last 63 years. That is unfortunate because the results of that are evident in the neglect of transportation and the neglect of agriculture.
However, the issue before us today is the history of the neglect by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) of the transportation needs of western Canada. In the few moments which are remaining, Mr. Speaker, I plan to address some of the most important areas in which this Minister of Transport has failed western Canadians.
I must begin by noting the Minister's absence during the course of this extremely important debate. I regret that very much. 1 would like to compliment my friend, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), who himself represents 50 per cent of the Liberal caucus from western Canada, for his attendance because his presence suggests that he cares about western Canadians. I can only assume that the absence of the Minister of Transport implies the opposite. Perhaps he is seeking support for his favourite candidate, Mr. John "Deficit" Turner, as I think he should be known.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would you buy a used Government from that man?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: 1 am sure that Canadians will not buy a used Government from either one of those two men. However, the issue before us is a history of neglect. Unfortunately, that is so evident today with the declining economy in western Canada. Many western Canadians hoped that when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry became Minister of Transport, replacing the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), the new Minister would be more sensitive to the needs of western Canadians. Unfortunately, that does not seem to have been the case. In fact, western Canadians are discovering already that some of the promises made to them during the course of the Crow debate in the fall are being broken.
Part of the package which was offered to western Canadian farmers in return for losing the Crow rate, one of their few privileges in Canadian history, was the fact that the railways would pump a great deal of money into the improvement of the railway transportation system. It has become painfully evident now that the railways are breaking that promise and it would appear as if this Government, and particularly the Minister of Transport, is doing nothing to force the railways into maintaining the pledge which it made. Therefore, the credibility of the Government is at stake.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary who has just spoken is doing her best, and I commend her for trying to make the best of a very bad situation. She is disappointed that the people of Canada are skeptical of promises made by the Government at this point in time. I am afraid it is perfectly understandable why that skepticism remains and is so strong. Promises made in the past have not materialized.
There are two or three things which are extremely important at this point. One, of course, is the question of deregulation. This question has already been addressed at some length today, but I would simply like to make two or three comments about the problems of deregulation as they affect smaller communities, particularly those in western Canada.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent the constituency of Brandon-Souris. It is only recently and thanks in large part to the efforts of the Hon. Member for Vegreville who held responsibilities in a previous administration and was very familiar with and sensitive to the plight of western Canadians that we in western Manitoba received jet air service.
As a result of those efforts in the past, PWA established a service between Calgary, Brandon and Toronto. That service is much appreciated by the people of western Manitoba. It is well utilized by the people of western Manitoba and the people of eastern Saskatchewan. However, the people in those communities recognize that if we move to a system of irresponsible deregulation, smaller communities like theirs may well lose the services which they already receive. In fact, the industrial commissioner for Brandon, Mr. Reg Forbes, made a representation to the committee just a few days ago arguing very effectively the concerns of smaller communities. We realize that deregulation will work to the advantage of the large metropolitan communities and will often work to the disadvantage of the small communities where the level of traffic is not sufficient to attract more than one carrier.
April 6, 1984

As you may well know, Mr. Speaker, the history of transportation in western Canada has often suffered from monopoly service. The essence of competition, of course, and of the so-called free enterprise system, is that it works to the advantage of the consumer. However, that system applies effectively only when there is, in fact, competition. So often that has not been the case in the west where one is dealing with a lesser populated area. I must express therefore, Mr. Speaker, some very real reservations, as the Hon. Member for Brandon-Sou-ris about the future of our community in terms of air service if we move irresponsibly into the area of complete deregulation.
I have also some very real concerns about what is happening in the area of the transportation system with respect to the movement of grain. Nothing is more vital to the economy of western Canada than the movement of grain. The very well being of our farmers, and of the communities and businesses which serve them, depends first of all upon the quantity and quality of the crop and, second, upon our ability to move our grain to market in an efficient, prompt and economical manner.
Unfortunately, the record of this Government is such that that criteria has not been fulfilled as often as the people of western Canada would want. I think particularly of the farmers in my community who are served by the Canadian National Railways, and the extreme frustration which they have felt by virtue of the fact that grain movement in those communities has not been equal to that of other communities. I state this for the record in order to bring this to the attention of the Minister, and I hope that he will address himself to this problem.
I am also concerned about particular communities in my constituency, and many others of a similar nature, which are suffering from a lack of adequate rail line maintenance. I think specifically of a line which may not seem very important to this Parliament, but which is very important to the people who count, the ordinary Canadians who are served by the Deloraine Waskada Line. Promises were made in the past that this line would be rehabilitated. However, despite the urgent requests of Jim Downey of the MLA, a mayor and a reeve from those communities, so far nothing has been done. It seems to be the case of promises made and promises broken.
Unfortunately, in 51 of the last 63 years there has been felt in western Canada a sense of cynicism and alienation. This is very distressing to me because I am a Canadian who worries about the future of Canada should the west as a region become too dissatisfied. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that cynicism, alienation and dissatisfaction is so genuine and so much a product of the accumulation of years and years that it will take more than one or two years, or even four years of a new government which is sensitive to and aware of the needs of western Canada before the damage of the past can be undone.
There is a tremendous crisis in western Canada today, as you know from discussions we have had in the House. Farm prices are declining. Farm bankruptcies are accelerating at an
Supply
almost unbelievable and, certainly, an unforgiveable rate. What is needed in the west is a Minister and a government which is committed to persuading western Canadians that they are, indeed, a vital part of this nation. Unfortunately, the neglect of the past has caused many western Canadians to fear for their very future. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the appointment of one of the two Liberal Members of Parliament from the west to this very important portfolio would have done something to rectify the grievances which we feel. But that has not been the case.
What we have instead is a Minister who participated over the demise of the Crow, who participated over the destruction of what in fact is part of the western Canadian birthright. In fact, many farmers say to me that the Crow was the only thing they received from Government which made them in any way feel they were the beneficiaries of Government. That, of course, was destroyed despite the pleas of Hon. Members on this side of the House. Even now when we move into the period of re-examination of the Crow there seems to be little urgency on the part of those on the opposite side of the House. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville said in the House the other day, a very important commission should have been appointed by April 1 and, in fact, nothing has been done. Again, to many Hon. Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that may seem like a small point. However, it is not a small point to the people of western Canada, the farmers, the businessmen who are dependent on those farmers, who simply see, in an accumulation of a number of instances, that in the minds of this Government they do not matter.
In the history of the west transportation has been, second to agriculture, the most vital part of our economy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you are familiar with the history of western Canada you will remember that settlers came to the west, to the Red River, as early as 1812, the famous Selkirk settlers. They realized when they settled in the Red River that this was an area which had tremendous potential for agriculture productivity. Many of those farmers were successful, but were discouraged because of their inability to move their product to market.
In fact, it was not until we moved into the period of Confederation, the period of John A. Macdonald, the Conservative Government of that day, that in central Canada the Government began to develop the national transportation framework which linked the west to the east. Since that time, the economy of the west has been dependent upon that very fragile but all important transportation link. I do not believe eastern Canadians have any appreciation of the importance of the railway, or of the importance of the transportation system, because in eastern Canada there are so many alternatives. In western Canada, however, all too often there are virtually no alternatives. In fact, many novelists writing about the history of the west have talked about the rail lines as an essential part of the life of the communities. They realized that in many ways the be-all and end-all of those communities was, in fact, the rail line. Without it they were severed from central

April 6, 1984
Supply
Canada and from the all important markets, and they were severed from any sense of belonging.
Something which sticks in my mind, Mr. Speaker, as an historian, is an incident which occurred in 1885 at the time of the second Riel Rebellion. The people of Calgary at that point in time were fearful for their future. Perhaps looking back on that time their fears were exaggerated, but nevertheless they were fearful because of the uprising which had occurred in the west.
During the midst of that crisis in the summer of 1885, troops from central Canada came into the west by the yet uncompleted CPR. Troops were able to move from central Canada to western Canada and the people of Calgary, it is recorded, believed at that point that they became a part of Canada for the first time. They felt they were Canadians. There is a real danger in western Canada, Mr. Speaker, of these western Canadians losing that feeling of belonging.
We faced a crisis in this country a few years ago in the Province of Quebec. We would be naive and foolish if we believed that the sense of alienation which exists in Canada has existed in only one region. It can be equally true of western Canada.
The way to deal with that alienation is to have a government in place which is aware of and is sensitive to the concerns of western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has a special responsibility in making western Canadians feel a part of Canada. The Minister of Transport has an equally important responsibility. I hope and trust he accepts that and recognizes the importance of his administration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 9, 1984