1970-03-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister I wish to announce that in view of the increasingly heavy responsibilities of the President of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Davenport has been appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, effective today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the business today, Mr. Speaker. As the House will recall, I called as business for today government order 67 and government order 76. From inquiries I have made, I gather there is some prospect that if the debates took their usual course they might well be disposed of by one o'clock today.
Hon. members will have noted that there is a motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and I suggest the House might make an order along the following lines: that the House proceed with other routine proceedings and the question period now, that the two government orders announced for today be considered and dealt with by one o'clock today, and that the House should then move to consider the motion in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
On this basis the business called for today could be dealt with, the House could have a question period and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador along with 21774-5
his hon. friends from Newfoundland, including the Minister of Transport, would have an opportunity to deal with the question of Labrador transportation.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Privy Council makes a suggestion we always stand back and examine it with great care. We are prepared to be very accommodating. On the instructions of my leader I suggest we proceed with the question period in the normal way and that the order in the name of my hon. friend should then be called.
I agree with the Leader of the House to this extent, that the two items of business called for today could probably be dealt with, and receive the proper examination, within an hour. But it is our view, and the view of the mover of the motion, that his motion should at least be the subject of a reasonable amount of discussion in the House. We therefore make the following proposal: that after the question period we should proceed with the motion, and that at three o'clock the debate would be concluded and a vote taken. We do not suggest the government has to accept this motion, but having regard to the great statements which were made yesterday about the right of this House to express its views, we feel we should have the right to express an opinion on the motion. It seems to me this is a very reasonable request to make, and I am sure that having heard it the President of the Privy Council will be bound to accept it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member did not make it clear that the order would also include the putting of all questions necessary to dispose of the two items under government orders by four o'clock-in other words, that we should make a special order that the business previously called for today be dealt with in all its stages between three and four o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Following the vote on the transport question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member indicates he and his friends will insist on a vote on the motion. Do he and his colleagues intend to vote against it? I gather there is no disposition on this side to vote against it.

March 6, 1970
Business of the House


An hon. Member:: We shall see.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we could make an order, then, on the following lines: that the motion outstanding in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador not be considered under motions but that it be considered as the first item of business under government orders; that the question period proceed, the House having dealt with the motion standing in the name of my colleague the hon. member for Gatineau; that at three o'clock, or at such earlier time as the House may have finished dealing with the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, the debate be interrupted for the purpose of putting the question on that particular motion; and that the House would then proceed to the two items called for today and all questions necessary to dispose of those two items would be put to the House by four o'clock.
If the House is generally agreeable, we could agree to an order in those terms.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have been on the periphery of these discussions, but the points that have been arrived at seem to be sensible. I take it that as a result we will have the question period, the government will get its two orders through and we will have a debate on the motion of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. The one little problem I see is how to divide the time from three to four o'clock between the two government bills.


Mr. Lewis:: Three-twenty and four.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, after the vote. Could there not be some understanding that at that point we would split whatever time there is remaining between the agricultural item and the radiation item?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was that consideration that motivated me to suggest that we deal with those items first and then, after they have been justly dealt with, go on with the transport committee report. However, I am prepared to accept whatever hon. members regard as an equitable division of time between the two items so long as all questions are disposed of by four o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think we
might discuss the last aspect and work something out. There may be fewer speech-emitting members by 3.20 and we can conclude the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposal advanced by the President of the Privy Council, after open discussions with the other House leaders. Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



METROPOLITAN TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-195, respecting the port of Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, at present only the city of Toronto and the federal government are represented on the Toronto Harbour Commission. This bill proposes that the province of Ontario and Metropolitan Toronto be also represented. If that happened, there would then be four levels of government forming the commission. I believe that if that were the case it would overcome the jurisdictional snarl and the commissioners could get on with their plans for a new harbour, including an inter-city airport in the harbour area.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question about the supplementary paper in connection with the white paper on taxation that the minister said on Wednesday he had approved and was sending to the chairman of the appropriate committee of the House. Would the minister tell the House precisely when he will be sending this document? I ask him this in view of the obvious interest of the House and the country in knowing the contents of this document.
March G, 1970


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: would think on Monday, Mr. Speaker. It is being translated and I would think it will be mailed on Monday. I have approved it for mailing but the letters of transmittal have not come back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the House that he will not use the ordinary mail to transmit this document? Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I ask this question because I will not be here to question him on Monday or Tuesday. Will he indicate briefly the aspects of the white paper that he will be covering in this proposal?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be reporting on the specific matter I indicated to the committee I would report on to them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this document the minister will be sending to the chairman of the committee on Monday include all the changes in the white paper proposals that the minister is prepared to make at the present time?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not prepared to make any changes in the white paper proposals. I would rather follow through the normal procedures of Parliament when a document is referred to a committee, that is, to have the committee hold hearings and advise the government on it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister agree that it would be perfectly proper for the minister, as he is now doing, to indicate the changes that he is already prepared to make so that the minister would be indicating to the chairman of the committee any changes that have taken place in his thinking? That is why I asked whether these changes incorporate all the changes that have taken place in the minister's thinking to date?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the committee. The committee is holding hearings. I hope all thinking Canadians who wish to make proposals will make those proposals to the committee. The government will expect to receive advice from the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate when he expects to announce the important and numerous changes which the Prime Minister said on Wednesday night at a Liberal dinner in Toronto would be made in the white paper?
21774-5h
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends seem not to believe in Parliament at all. This parliament referred the white paper-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: This House referred-


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


Edgar John Benson: This House referred the white paper to a committee of the House to examine it. The committee is examining the white paper. I think it would be quite improper for me to run around and flout the committee as the Leader of the Opposition is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but we are perhaps now entering the field of debate. We should now go on to the next question.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the drastic decline in housing starts and the unprecedented height of mortgage interest rates in the first part of this year, will the minister invite to Ottawa representatives of the provincial and municipal governments together with representatives of the financial institutions for the purpose of finding ways and means to solve these problems and to give federal leadership in this important field?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting and constructive suggestion. I would only comment that we are almost constantly in communication with each component group that can bring effort to bear on the matter. I will certainly take the suggestion under advisement.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister. As an interim measure would the minister direct $50 million of the $200 million set aside by him for innovative purposes for the purpose of rent subsidies to assist low-income people to obtain adequate accommodation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is really a proposal or suggestion. I would not think this is a proper question. He has to assume that the minister will consider the proposal that has been made to him.

March 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing.
Could he tell us why his department has reduced from $35 million to $17 million the grant which was to be given to the City of Montreal for the Little Burgundy renewal project?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no agreement was ever entered into by the federal government with the city of Montreal for $35 million or any other amount for urban renewal there. Authority for such negotiations was given to one of my predecessors back in 1966-67 but in the meantime the Quebec Housing Corporation was formed and we were asked to enter into a master agreement with them with the understanding they would allocate the urban renewal funds in that master agreement. With regard to our offer made to Quebec in December which I announced in the House concerning three schemes, one in Montreal and two in Quebec, satisfactory negotiations are going on now with the Quebec Housing Corporation. Frankly, it came as a complete surprise to me to be told of the press statement which appeared this morning about Montreal.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Is it true that the city of Montreal has rejected the $17.8 million that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has offered to it for the Little Burgundy urban renewal project?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to confirm or deny a report. In this way the question is not in order.


Mr. Allmand:: Perhaps I might reword the question, Mr. Speaker. Has the city of Montreal sent a message to the minister stating that they refuse the $17.8 million which has been offered to them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no such communication has been received by me.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he would reconsider his position in view of the fact that without

this money urban renewal in Montreal cannot go on. Would he reconsider his opposition and grant the $35 million which is required for the project?


Robert Knight Andras: We have offered to the Quebec Housing Corporation and the Quebec government $17J million for the implementation of the Montreal scheme. I have had no counterproposal from them so all this battle is going on through press statements.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say, in view of the housing crisis to which my colleague, the member for Broadview, has referred and in view of the forthcoming budget, whether the government is giving consideration to the elimination of the federal sales tax on building materials?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, of course, is anticipating an order of the House.



URBAN RENEWAL-COMMITMENTS TO HAMILTON AND MONTREAL

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In view of the growing concern and frustration that has resulted from the government's attitude with regard to urban renewal, would the minister take it upon himself at least to visit the cities of Montreal and Hamilton in order that some concrete proposals can be made with regard to continuing urban renewal, particularly when commitments or implied commitments have been made by this government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we made a very clear commitment to the city of Hamilton and a precise amount of money was named in that commitment. So far as I am concerned I have had no communication from official representatives of Hamilton to the effect they are having difficulty forming a plan within that commitment. If they want to communicate with me directly I will be glad to visit with them. So far as Montreal is concerned I believe I gave an explanation a few minutes ago.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer the minister has given me but I thought I had pointed out there is a sense of frustration which exists in the city of Hamilton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Oshawa-Whitby.
March 6, 1970



CONSTRUCTION BY POLYMER FOR LOW-INCOME GROUPS

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenf (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate whether CMHC has had discussions with officials of the Crown corporation, Polymer, which has just entered the housing construction business with the intent of providing at the earliest possible time housing for low-income groups in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. CMHC has had such discussion.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister in charge of housing abandoned the proposal of the Hellyer task force that the federal government should make direct loans to municipalities and regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the examination of prices in an effort to provide housing at more reasonable rates for the people of Canada have the minister and his associates studied the plan in operation in Australia where people can buy a three-bedroom house for the equivalent of $12,000 with a $1,200 down payment and a 5 per cent mortgage?


Mr. Speaker:: This interesting question is of the same nature as the one asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Perhaps it would be more proper as part of a debate.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question. The minister can very easily answer yes or no if he knows the answer.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he indicate to the House whether the policy regarding subsidies to gold mines for the next few years is still under study and whether he has received or intends to hear representations from industrialists and union members?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the study is still going on and I shall be pleased to hear the representations referred to by the hon. member.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the report on this study on subsidies to gold mines will be published and whether the proposals that his department intends to make will be announced soon enough, this with a view to reassuring the miners and allowing the mining companies to work out their budgets?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made yet on whether the report should be published or not. However, I can assure the hon. member that an opportunity will be provided to spokesmen form industry and unions to discuss the matter before a decision is made.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
When he answered the hon. member for Abitibi a moment ago, he referred to the fact that for various reasons, the recommendations of the study would probably never be published. Can the minister tell the House that those recommendations will be published, so that fair and complete representations can be made?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance to the House, because I am not the only one concerned, since the government is also involved. I can, however, assure the hon. member that we will certainly listen to the representations to which he referred.



GOLD MINING-POLICY RESPECTING GRANTS- REALLOCATION OF WORKERS

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: May I ask the minister how soon he will be in a position to make a statement regarding this crisis with reference to further assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. May I also ask him what consultations he has had with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, whether special counsellors have been sent into the area to
4466	COMMONS DEBATES	March 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
cope with the situation, and whether any Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of thought has been given to the reallocation of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I answered this workers?	question in part the other day.
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy,
Minas and Resources): No decision has yet been made as to when reports will be made available or as to when there will be a decision, although obviously it must be taken before the end of the year. We are doing a very comprehensive survey in the regions affected to determine the nature of the economic and human dislocation which would be caused by the discontinuance of the program. If it were deemed in the public interest that the program be discontinued, then certainly these studies will be made available to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to achieve the maximum wellbeing and offer alternative opportunities of employment to the workers.


Robert Muir: What steps have been taken to date by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and what consultations have taken place in line with the statement of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that no corporation and no government should lay off massive groups of men without making proper arrangements and giving adequate notice?


John James Greene: The surveys are being done by my department at the present time, and officials of my department are of course consulting officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, but until a decision is made to abandon the program no alternative program can, of course, be considered.



TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the increase in freight rates, effective March 1, on the part of the CNR and the CPR for livestock and certain other commodities. I raised this question earlier to ascertain what the government is going to do in order to protect agriculture from this further body blow with respect to livestock production at a time when encouragement is being given to diversification from wheat and other cereal production.
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys).)


John George Diefenbaker: Only in part.


Mr. Jamieson:: At the time when the freight rate increases were announced originally the railways, at the request of the government, deferred their implementation until the conference sponsored by the Prices and Incomes Commission could be held. Subsequently, when the guidelines were announced by the Prices and Incomes Commission the railways felt they were well within those guidelines and consequently announced they were going to proceed with the increases. As a result the Prices and Incomes Commission is now investigating whether or not these price increases were justified, and in order to facilitate this investigation, to get it done as quickly as possible, Canadian Transport Commission officials have been made available to the Prices and Incomes Commission for this purpose.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the increases have actually taken effect already, and what representations did he or any member of the government make to Canada's railways? He cannot make representations to the CPR, but what representations were made to the CNR?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I held lengthy conversations with both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways. Their submission to me naturally was that these increases were justified in light of very considerably increased costs, including a 6J per cent, I believe it was, labour cost increase as of January 1. I was not prepared, on the basis of my own competence, to judge whether they were justified or not, and hence the reference to the Prices and Incomes Commission.
I think the right hon. member will know there is no authority vested in the Minister of Transport arbitrarily to roll back these price increases which I regret, I am sure, just as much as he does.


John George Diefenbaker: I do recognize that fact but, after all, surely the CNR would listen to the government in a matter such as this? This is the second increase on livestock freight in a year.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Was
March 6, 1970

the CNR not one of those government agencies, on the list of such agencies issued recently, that were not going to increase their prices or their rates?



RAIL AND TRUCK SHIPMENT OF GOODS F.O.B. TORONTO OR HAMILTON-EFFECT ON PRICE RESTRAINT PROGRAM

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received complaints from a large number of people in western Canada that goods which were formerly shipped by rail or truck f.o.b. Winnipeg or Regina are now shipped f.o.b. Toronto or Hamilton, which has meant a substantial increase in the actual prices which will be passed on to consumers, making a mockery of the government's restraint program? Has the minister had any complaints and, if so, what is he doing about them?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not recall at the moment whether this specific matter has been referred to me personally but if the hon. member, who obviously has had complaints, will send them to me I will be glad to investigate them.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-DECREASE IN REVENUE-LOWERING OF RATES ON CEREAL GRAINS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has announced a drop of 14 per cent in its earnings this year, and that in large part this is due to the decline in wheat carried, will consideration be given to lowering the rates or tariff on cereal grains to correct this situation and to help the movement of grain east?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated subject, and I do not believe I could answer it in a manner that would be acceptable to you. I can only say my information is that the drop in revenue was only partially and perhaps minimally affected by grain rates and was due to the lengthy and protracted iron ore strike in Labrador.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. In keeping with other government agencies and departments that have withdrawn projected increases in fees, rentals, and so forth, is the Department of National Defence considering the withdrawal of the proposed rental increase for permanent married quarters, projected for April 1 next?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have delayed actually implementing a decision that had been taken some time ago on the advice of the Treasury Board. We are trying to comply with some kind of national average in this case. I think the decision to increase the rent was taken before January 1, and the roll-back applies to decisions taken on or after January 1.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Perhaps the minister can reconcile his statement with the government's decision to withdraw the airlines ticket tax which was originally announced in the last budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think this is a proper question. The hon. member for Oxford.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister get in touch with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and make arrangements to have its local representatives conducting the present consumers' price survey carry out their duties in areas other than those in which they are resident? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked the question. I have suggested before that it is not in order to continue the matter by explaining or indicating why the question is asked. It is much simpler to just ask it and give the minister an opportunity to answer it.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: I would like to know more about it, Mr. Speaker. Are these people not good Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this is one occasion where the explanation might be helpful.

March 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is what I had in mind, Mr. Speaker. I asked the question because I have received several complaints that persons are refusing to answer the many highly personal questions in this survey because they are being asked by next-door neighbours, which creates great personal embarrassment, and these people who are refusing to answer the questions, are liable to be prosecuted.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose the matter will now be clear to the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into it immediately, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House dealing with the constitution are limited by their terms of reference to dealing with proposals advanced by the government, is it government policy now, as was indicated recently in a speech by the Minister of Supply and Services in Winnipeg, that it is not out of the realm of possibility for western Canada to control wheat policy, oil policy and possibly transportation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and all members of the House that the government takes full responsibility for the policies it announces and supports.



HOUSING


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I with your permission come back to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing and ask him whether he has completed his discussions with the provincial ministers in charge of housing, and whether he can inform the House as to the date when we may expect a statement from him with regard to public housing guidelines?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, those consultations I regret are not yet completed, although I am just as eager as the hon. member to come to a decision. Therefore I am not in a position to give a precise date. As far as I am concerned it will be as soon as possible, recognizing the need for some statement on this matter.


David Lewis: Could the minister indicate even approximately how much longer he expects these discussions to take so that Parliament and the country may know what the policy with regard to public housing will be without too long a delay?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it would be a matter of three or four weeks. I might add that in the meantime many, I think, beneficial changes are taking place on a somewhat unofficial basis, so the time for a precise announcement does not mean a total loss of change required.



CONSULTATION WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND LAWYERS RESPECTING FEES

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the kind of program the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is endeavouring to carry out, has the minister consulted with insurance companies, real estate people and lawyers in an effort to have fees, commissions and other costs involved in house sales and transfers reduced, or at least the line held, and is the minister giving consideration to establishing a national conference with these people to discuss this topic?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is a long and involved question. Most certainly in the amendment to the act last summer we reduced certain of the fees chargeable in this general area. We are making our views known to lawyers and insurance companies about our distaste for excessive charges in this field, but as far as a national conference is concerned it has not been planned along that line.



CMHC CAPITAL BUDGET-APPLICATIONS FOR SHARE OF $200 MILLION FOR INNOVATIONS

David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether any actual applications have been made to CMHC for any of the $200 million which the minister announced in the capital budget of CMHC for new innovations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would say dozens and dozens of these applications and suggestions are flowing in and we have a special
March B, 1970



group in CMHC dealing with them trying to choose among the many very good suggestions.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of supplementaries so perhaps I might return to the hon. member for Winnipeg North in a moment. The hon. member for Hillsborough.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister which concerns the continuing chaotic state of the mail service in Montreal. Now that the Minister of Labour and the Postmaster General have failed, could he advise what other minister or ministers will now be assigned the duty of bringing about a solution to the prolonged postal dispute in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Further to his statement when he announced reductions in the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces, could the minister now indicate to the House and the people of Canada what procedure he will follow in achieving the reduction of the 5,000 civilian employees?
Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the information the hon. member is seeking is of such wide import that it should be given to the House by way of a general statement. If the minister has a short reply I am sure that would be fine, but in the normal way the information should be conveyed on motions.


Mr. Forrestall:: Then, Mr. Speaker, could I invite the minister to make a statement at an early opportunity in view of the widespread rumours circulating within the ranks of civilian employees? Would the minister make such a statement in the next few days?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, certainly in a general way one should discount rumours. There was one in Halifax yesterday to the effect that we were dispensing with the services of 1,000 people. This is completely untrue and therefore I cannot speculate on rumours. I think I did indicate in a general way when I made my statement that most of the reductions would be achieved by normal attrition. There are some problems, but in any case I gave a commitment, which I am trying to live up to, that never in our reductions would we give less than six months' notice. This happened last week to a group in a depot in Montreal which we are going to close. They were given six months' notice and most of them were given some preference or some kind of priority for an examination in the civil service that would come up


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think the statement should be made now. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport with respect to the Manhattan voyage in Arctic waters. I should like to ask the minister if his department now has a plan whereby any spilled oil can be immediately disposed of should some catastrophe befall the U.S. tanker Manhattan while she is in Canadian waters?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me this same question was asked last week or earlier this week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the great demand for passports and keeping in mind the frustration and confusion that the Canadian people were confronted with last year in applying for passports, is it still the intention of the department to open an office in Toronto and, if so, when may we expect it to be opened and what is the possible location?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the last part of the question by saying it is still the intention to open an office in Toronto. I think all the arrangements have been com-
4470	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry pleted and an announcement will be made within a few days, I hope. May I say while I am on my feet that I hope all Members of Parliament will encourage people who intend to travel at the peak of the season to apply for passports now as this will greatly facilitate the handling of the problem.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. A few days ago I asked a question in connection with a news item which indicated that travel agents were going to charge $5 for getting passports for people. Does the minister have a report?


An hon. Member:: Running a racket.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who, the minister?


George Harris Hees: Did you hear what he said about you? Deny it. You are in serious trouble.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was suggested in the news report, this did not have the blessing of the passport office. All applications for passports are handled with all possible speed for the regular fee, whether sent direct or through a travel agent. Where delays occur in issuing passports, it is usually because of errors or omissions in the application. If applicants for passports wish to ask a travel agent to assist them in making out their application and forwarding it to the passport office, they are free to do so. The new branch passport offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver will be able to give advice and assistance in urgent cases. I do want to say that the agency explained to us at least that their service was not meant to be available to the public but to travel agents in other parts of the country. I can assure you that this did not have the blessing of the Canadian government, and I advise anyone concerned not to waste his money.


Mr. Grant Deacnman (Vancouver Quadra):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise if any special arrangements are being made to assist people in the city of Vancouver in respect of passports?

DEBATES	March 6, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to have an office in Vancouver which will be opened shortly to handle, particularly, emergency cases. I hope that other applicants will continue to use the ordinary facilities but use them in time and not wait to the last minute.



HOUSING


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baftleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Is consideration being given to the establishment of a government-owned system of savings and mortgage institutions designed specifically to serve the residential mortgage market on a regional basis?


Robert Knight Andras: Such consideration has not been given at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I think many of these kinds of alternatives are being looked at.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Will he make a statement on motions at an early date setting forth his policies with regard to wheat, oil, transportation and the constitutional aspects? In particular, would he explain in the statement how his views differ from those being put forward by the Quebec government with regard to provincial authority?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this should be the subject for a statement on motions.



POLLUTION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealing with pollution. Since the International Joint Commission has now stated that only 2 per cent of the phosphorus entering Lake Erie and Lake Ontario from all sources comes from Canadi-
March 6, 1970

an use of detergents while 90 per cent of all the phosphorus in sewage should be removed in order to control the growth of algae in lakes, what recommendations is the minister making to convert existing sewage treatment plants for the removal of phosphorus?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the total package can, I think, be subsumed best under the Canada water bill. If the committee can get the Canada water bill back to the House so that we can make it law, I think it will be an extremely useful vehicle for the solution of the problem.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance mainly because so many other ministers are defying the roster system and Standing Order 5 of the House of Commons today. Has the minister any evidence of wholesale bank deposits made by Canadians at American border points because of their fears of the white paper and the future of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Norman A. Caiik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I shall direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the concern regarding the unemployment in the auto industry in the Oshawa area and surrounding areas, could the minister indicate if this situation is peculiar to this area or if the same situation exists in other areas of Canada and the United States?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Norman Augustine Cafik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this matter is of genuine concern to the people of my area. I ask Your Honour to allow the minister to reply to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the form of the question about which I have doubt. I realize how important the matter is and that it is of concern. I do not want to prevent the minister from answering an important question if it is the feeling of hon. members that the minister should be given an opportunity to reply.
21774-6J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my department keeps monitoring this situation. It has not been found that there are disproportionate lay-offs in the automobile labour force in Canada as compared with the situation in the American labour force.


Norman Augustine Cafik: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are such unemployed people in the auto industry eligible for assistance under the TAB program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are eligible under the unemployment act and under the TAB program. I understand in some cases the benefits can be as high as 95 per cent of the usual take-home money.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Is it not the case that the three most recent applications for TAB in the Oshawa area have been turned down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is asked in an argumentative way.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister consider having the prices of Canadian cars reduced to the same level as those in the United States in order to increase employment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. However, I am glad to report that the gap between the United States price ex-factory and the Canadian price is shrinking. Last year it was 3.8 per cent. It is now down to 3.5 per cent.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DECREASE IN COMMODITY SURPLUS

George Harris Hees: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what steps his department is planning to take to counteract the decrease of more than half a billion dollars in our commodity trade surplus that has taken place during the past year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I doubt that, Mr. Speaker, but I am in the habit of writing to the hon. member when he asks me one of these colossal questions. I can promise him another letter which will place his observation in the proper perspective.

March 6, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Will the minister make sure that in his letter he explains the situation rather than dealing in the meaningless gobbledegook which his department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the government's austerity program, will the minister please inform the House why electric eye magnetically-controlled toilet flushers were installed in place of manual flushers in the officers' quarters at Uplands?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: This question could be placed on the Order Paper.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not have an opportunity to answer the last question. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services in connection with his reconfederation plan to offset separatism in western Canada, under which western Canada would have control over wheat policy, oil policy and transportation. Will the minister say whether there is a task force working on this?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I assume the right hon. gentleman is referring to a report of a speech I made in Winnipeg on Monday.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Armstrong Richardson: I did name these subjects but I was not talking about our present wheat policy, oil policy or transportation policy. I was talking about where these policies should ultimately be directed. This is a constitutional matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the minister, but a question on this point has already been asked. As hon. members know, the only way questions can be asked about statements or speeches made outside the House is by way of a question to the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister

as to whether these statements represent government policy. The question has already been asked of the Acting Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the question directly? What is the plan that the minister has in mind whereby we in western Canada are going to be able to control our wheat, oil and transportation? What is this plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister would want to give this explanation by way of a statement on motions.
Orders of the day.
I gather that in view of the order passed earlier today we now revert to motions for the purpose of putting to the House the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador) moved: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 3, 1970, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some time last year the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications received an order of the House to travel where they saw fit in the Atlantic provinces to deal with questions of transportation. The original idea was that the committee would visit only the provincial capitals. I and my colleagues from Newfoundland who were members of the committee at the time were successful in conveying to the committee and convincing them of the absolute necessity and importance, because of the unique transportation problems in the Labrador part of my riding, that they should also pay a visit to Labrador. I sincerely appreciate the committee's sympathy in agreeing to visit Labrador.
We decided that because we did not have too much difficulty convincing them to pay one visit we would press our advantage and suggest that they make two visits in Labrador. We again received the support of the committee on this suggestion. Consequently this past September the committee visited the Wabush-Labrador City area and also the
March 6, 1970

Goose Bay-Happy Valley area. In addition, the committee visited many areas on the north shore. They visited Levis, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Iles and Schefferville in the province of Quebec and the towns of Wabush, Labrador City, Goose Bay and Happy Valley in the province of Newfoundland.
I do not really believe it should be necessary to take the time of the House to have a debate on this matter. My motion is simply that the report of this committee be concurred in. Hon. members will recall the report was presented to the House on February 3 by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) in the absence of the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), the chairman of the committee, who was ill at the time.


Mr. McGrath:: The genial chairman.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The genial chairman, of course. When a report of this kind is presented to the House, I cannot understand why a motion for its concurrence is not made at the same time. However, this was not done. The committee consisted of 20 to 25 members of this House from all parties. We proceeded on this trip at very considerable public expense. There was a bevy of interpreters, technicians, shorthand writers and clerical staff. A lot of hard work went into the drawing up of this report. Following the trip there was further discussion and investigation and I do not really see what the objection is to concurrence by the House.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
I am sure the committee was pleasantly surprised at the reception members received when they arrived in Wabush. The people of the area were enthused about a visit of the Transport Committee. A friend of mine in Labrador, Mr. Burgess, had seen fit to arrange for a big welcoming committee to be at the airport. We stayed in this area for several days. The meetings were well attended by the public. We received a large number of briefs from various groups and organizations, briefs which were helpful and well constructed. It was generally agreed on the way back that the committee, in its travels, had never seen such interest and such enthusiasm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There is a good spirit in Labrador, and I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will bear me out when I say this. Only recently we had the opportunity to attend a great conference there on Labrador's role in the 'seventies. The minister spoke to
Transport and Communications the gathering there and I believe the title of his speech was "The Federal Government's Plan for Labrador".
The Transport Committee made a number of recommendations to the House. I expect the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Blouin) will deal with those which affect his constituency-we share a common boundary. My remarks will concern the recommendations which apply to Labrador. Action has already begun with respect to one of these recommendations, namely, that an instrument landing system be installed at the Wabush terminal airport. I note with pleasure that there is an appropriation in this year's estimates of some $200,000 to provide this facility. A further recommendation is to the effect that the Department of Transport should take over the operation of the terminal at Wabush which is presently administered by a private concern.
The recommendation which arouses most interest among the people of Labrador is, I believe, the one which has to do with roads and highway construction. The committee recommended that the federal government consider the advisability of entering into an agreement with the Province of Quebec and Newfoundland with a view to constructing a road to connect the north of Baie Comeau with the cities of Sept lies, Manicouagan, Gagnon, Wabush, Churchill Falls and Goose Bay, of course, by using existing roads as far as possible. A further recommendation was that a connecting road should be constructed to link the city of Schefferville with the new road.
Everyone is aware that highways normally come under provincial jurisdiction. The committee accepts this principle, and was aware of it. Nevertheless, the suggestion was made that the federal government should initiate discussions with the two provinces concerned to the end that a satisfactory road be established.
I shall not stand here and talk just for the sake of talking. As I said earlier, I do not think it should be necessary at all. Last night we heard the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) take back some of the unkind remarks he had made about the committee system. He told us that in his opinion the committee system had greatly improved and that he now had no compunction about lauding it in the House. If the committee system is to mean anything, I see no reason why the Transport Committee should not exercise the same amount of influence as, for example, the committee of this whole House. After all, we did
March 6, 1970

Transport and Communications not go on any pleasure cruise; our members worked hard under the guidance of a very capable chairman, the hon member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I feel sure that had the hon. member not been ill when he presented the report to the House on February 3, he would have moved for concurrence at that time. The arrangement today is that a vote is to be taken at three o'clock. If the Minister of Transport, the President of the Privy Council (Mir. Macdonald) or any other of the hon. gentlemen opposite would say right now that the report can be concurred in, I am sure there would be no further debate, at least from this side of the House, and we could get on with the rest of our business. I invite the genial chairman of the Transport Committee to participate in the discussion. I invite the hon. member for Manicouagan to participate. I am certain he will support the idea that the report should be concurred in. I invite the Newfoundland representative in the federal cabinet to throw his support behind the motion in the interest of Newfoundland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is always a happy day for me when I can agree with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) and demonstrate, despite some criticism to the contrary, that my interest in Newfoundland remains as extensive and every bit as sincere as is his own.
I am always happy when I can commend the Committee on Transport and Communications, of which I was a member back in days before many hon. gentlemen were in this House. I have good reason to know the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador is correct when he says this is one of the most hard-working committees of the House and one of the most thorough. It usually comes up with some of the best recommendations.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Among those are the recommendations contained in this report. I say this, perhaps, with more authority than I can express judgment on some of the other matters dealt with in the committee's recommendations, because I have a personal knowledge of at least most of the matters which are discussed in this report. It is clear from the recommendations that are made that they did, in fact, get first hand information in the areas in which they travelled. In fact, what they have said constitutes a very good reflection of the views of

people living in those areas. The solutions that they propose appear to be, in most instances at least, logical and sensible, ones that the government ought to pursue. So I have no hesitation in saying that, certainly in principle, the ideas expressed make a good deal of sense.
I was also delighted to have the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador acknowledge that in the case of highways, and in the case of some of the other recommendations contained in the report, these are not matters that are completely within the competence of the federal government. There is in the case of the roads proposals, as in some others, the necessity to consult with the various provincial governments, and even with some of the municipalities. Indeed, there are other places where even private interests are involved. In one or two cases one might question whether or not the recommendations come within the purview of the federal government at all. I have in mind the last of the recommendations having to do with the current status of the Carol Lake Company Act, which it could conceivably be argued is a matter relating wholly and exclusively to the provincial government. I am not certain of that but that will be a point worth examining.
My main reason for making these comments is to point out that in all cases we will be more than prepared to make the studies that the report recommends. On balance, as Minister of Transport, I feel that many of the recommendations are sound. As the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has said, in one or two cases we have already proceeded to implement these recommendations. Certainly, I see no reason why we should not look into the others.
Again, let me emphasize that in virtually all of the recommendations there is, in addition to the need to consult with, for example, provincial governments and other agencies, the necessity for feasibility studies to be made. There is also some question of jurisdiction in the matter, for instance, of the ferry from the north shore to the south shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Again, this is one of those issues where it is not clear in my mind whether it is a federal responsibility or requires the initiation of the provincial government which will be helped through some form of subsidy program, if that turns out to be the logical answer to the problem. Similarly, in the case of other proposals, it will be necessary to discuss whether this method would provide the solution.
March 6, 1970	COMMONS
I have received, as I believe the committee have, representations suggesting that the real answer in terms of that part of the country is perhaps an extension of the roads system. Therefore, within the whole complex of these first class recommendations, I am sure that the committee members, as well as the members of the House, recognize the need for the studies they propose.
On the question of airline activities in northern Quebec and Labrador, here again there is some question as to the competence of any government agency to require that, for example, the two airlines pool their activities. This recommendation pretty well parallels one that was made by the Canadian Transport Commission itself at the time that these licences were granted. It will be necessary in this case to see whether or not we have the power or the authority in any agency of the federal government to force them to do this if they do not feel so inclined.
I want to express my very great regret that these airlines have not, in fact, as yet seen fit to carry out this suggestion of the Canadian Transport Commission. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that it has taken so long for them to do so. As yet I have not found any clear cut explanation on the part at least of one of the airlines concerned why that is so. I am told that one of the airlines is quite happy and is prepared to do so. However, I simply make this point of order to emphasize that it may not be something that we are in a position to require two carriers to do. If we can do so, then I will not be in the least hesitant to utilise my maximum authority, because what the committee has recommended does make an enormous amount of sense.
All of this is simply by way of saying that I and the government would have no compunction whatever about accepting the hon. member's motion. In giving concurrence to the committee report, I want to emphasize what I said before. Concurrence on the part of the government in this motion involves our acknowledgement of the valuable work that has been done by the committee in examining transportation conditions in eastern Canada. It involves the acknowledgement that the work was thorough and that many reasoned recommendations resulted. By concurring in the motion, the government also agrees that the committee's recommendations deserve, and will get, full consideration in terms of the implementation of policy. To the extent that our competence, budgetary conditions and general policies permit, as well as, of course, in terms of the limitations of our jurisdiction,
DEBATES	4475
Transport and Communications as I said a moment ago, we will be pleased to act on the recommendations and to make them the basis of future policy planning.
I am delighted to have been able to say this, and I am also delighted that we can now save the time of the House. In view of the commitment made to us by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador that this will end the debate, I suggest that the question be put and that we get on with the business of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: That's right, talk it out.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have no intention of talking out the motion, but I do feel it necessary to make a few comments on the remarks that were just made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).
First of all, I suggest to the minister that we are delighted the government has finally decided to recognize that there was a fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and that, as a consequence of the initative of my colleague the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), the government are going to accept the recommendations contained in that report.
I find it passing strange that this report was presented to the House on February 3, yet no initiative was taken by the government, or indeed by the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), the chairman of the committee, to move concurrence in the report. One can only conclude either that the government did not know that a report existed, or that the report in some respect must have represented an embarrassment to them.
Contrast the motion on today's Order Paper by my colleague from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador with the second motion standing in the name of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The two motions are similar except for the fact that the second motion is standing in the name of the chairman of the committee. He is moving concurrence in a report that was presented to the House two days ago. The fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was, as I have said, presented to the House on February 3, over a month ago, and concurrence is moved only today and only as s
March 6, 1970

Transport and Communications consequence of the initiative of an hon. member of the opposition, my colleague from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
I think that the House deserves an explanation of this situation. Certainly, the minister did not give an explanation. I hope that the hon. member for La Salle will get to his feet and tell the House why he did not carry out his responsibility as chairman of the committee.


Mr. Lessard (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow the hon. member to speak in a moment, but I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member for St. John's East that what is before the House is a detailed report. I suggest it is quite unparliamentary to attack the conduct of a member or of the chairman of a committee in the way he has. If he believes the report is worthy of consideration at this time, he should consider a discussion of that report but not the conduct of another member or, the conduct of the chairman of the committee. That is what is being done at the present time.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all in complying with your ruling as I have the greatest respect for the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard). In fact, he is one of the hardest-working committee chairmen in the House. It is because of my great affection and respect for him that I hate to see the work of the committee as well as his hard work put aside in this way. I was about to suggest, before Your Honour got to your feet, that perhaps the hon. member for LaSalle failed to present the motion for concurrence in the report because of pressure from the government. That is the only conclusion to which I can come.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a question of privilege.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that the committee never enjoined me to move that my report be concurred in.
[Mr. McGrath.1


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I would like to suggest to the hon. member that what is before the House now is the substance of the report. It seems to me this is a very important report and if we are going to have a debate that is what we should be considering at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling. I want to just comment on the suggestion by my hon. friend that there was never any suggestion there would be a motion for concurrence. The transport committee proceeded to Labrador and the north shore of Quebec last September in compliance with an order of reference from the House to conduct a study of transportation problems of the north shore of Quebec and that part of Newfoundland known as the territory of Labrador.
In compliance with that order of reference the committee, during the course of the recess prior to the present session, travelled to the north shore of Quebec and to Labrador under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for LaSalle. It conducted hearings in the cities of Levis, Sept-Iles, Labrador City, Schefferville and Goose Bay, and worked diligently for ten days to hear the evidence on which the report and the recommendations now before the House are based. I find it inconceivable the hon. member for LaSalle would imply that there was never any suggestion the committee would not expect that its fourth report would be concurred in. Anybody who reads the recommendations contained in the fourth report, which is before the House, could only come to the conclusion that obviously the committee intended that the recommendations be concurred in by the House because they are specific recommendations to the House.
This is not the first time this has happened, Mr. Speaker. The same hanky-panky took place with the same committee at the last session of the House. I remember full well the second report of the transport committee and how at the last session of Parliament-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should deal with the report which is before the House. Again, I suggest that if this debate is to serve a purpose it should be a discussion of the report before the House, not on reports which had been considered or perhaps ought to have been considered before. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member, and those who take part in this debate, that it is rather sterile to spend the whole day on a debate as to whether a motion which is not
March 6, 1970

before the House now should have been moved before. What is up for discussion is the substance of the report.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the report
before the House and the recommendations contained in the report are, as I was suggesting, the results of a long and exhaustive study and public hearings. I am glad to see the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Blouin) is in the House because he was one of the members of the committee who worked hard in the preparation of the report and he has a particular interest in the report because it affects so much of his constituency. I hope the hon. member for Manicouagan, before the allotted time for this debate has expired, will rise to his feet and make comments on the recommendations contained in the report. These recommendations are very important to the territory of the north shore of Quebec, a'nd to my hon. friend's constituency of Manicouagan which is suffering the consequences of an inadequate system of transportation.
These recommendations are vital to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will not hide behind the narrow, hair-splitting excuse of jurisdiction as he suggested he is going to do. He has suggested, for example, that highroads come under provincial jurisdiction. Everybody in the House knows that. The committee knew that when it made these recommendations and the committee also knew-


An hon. Member:: You don't seem to
know-


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not mind being interrupted by Your Honour but, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that members on that side should permit me to conclude my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for St. John's East has the floor and questions can be asked of him only if he is prepared to yield the floor.


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, I will be glad to entertain a question from the hon. member when I have finished my remarks.
We all know that highway construction does come within provincial jurisdiction. The committee knew that when it made its recommendations. We also had the experience of
Transport and Communications the Trans-Canada highway, and we also had the experience of the Roads to Resources Program. Both these programs were as a consequence of federal initiative, and both programs were carried out with substantial federal financial participation. There is, therefore, no suggestion that we are interfering with any area of provincial jurisdiction.
What we are suggesting is that the government of Canada exercise its responsibility to get an agreement between the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland and that the government of Canada participate in this agreement to build a road across Labrador, through the constituency of Manicouagan down to the north shore of Quebec. That is all we are suggesting; but the Minister of Transport knows the intransigence of the Premier of Newfoundland in this regard. He knows some of the political implications involved in this program. Perhaps that is why he suggested, or tried to suggest he was powerless to act because this was a provincial responsibility.
We are delighted that the government intends, at long last, to act on or accept the recommendations of the committee. The only thing we find difficulty in understanding is why the Minister of Transport-perhaps the hon. member for Lasalle will enlighten us on this-allowed us to take the initiative in moving concurrence in this report, and why the hon. member for Lasalle as chairman of the committee did not move concurrence in the report a few days after it was presented.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be taking part in this debate. I have no wish to delay the proceedings of the House, but I would like to say a few words about the motion of my friend the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle). Our districts have a common border. In those vast areas, needless to say that difficult problems do arise, not only with regard to transport and communications, but in many other fields as well.
I was a member of the committee on transport and communications and I was very happy to visit the area in the company of 20 other parliamentarians of various political allegiances who were able to find out on the spot that the problems to which I have just alluded do exist.
I will mostly discuss the contents of the committee report. I was pleased to hear the
March 6. 1970

Transport and Communications devoted Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who spoke earlier say that he agreed with the report's recommendations.
In accepting that report the minister who represents Newfoundland must surely be aware of the gigantic developments in the constituencies of Manicouagan and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. Now, should he feel that the recommendations in the committee report are too exhaustive, I must remind him that in my constituency the federal government gets $20 million a year in corporate income taxes.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Moreover, taking into account the recommendations of the committee, he would only make up a little for the huge amounts that the mining industry pays each year to the government.
A specific mention is made in the report about ferryboats. The minister said earlier that he did not know whether ferryboats were under the federal or the provincial jurisdiction. I know that after many efforts to secure a ferryboat service between the south shore and the north shore we have always been told, at least these last few years, that those ferryboats provided a provincial service and that, consequently, jurisdiction over them ought to rest with the province of Quebec.
The ferryboats system also comes under the federal jurisdiction, I think. In fact, all ferryboats in Canada, whether they are provincial or interprovincial services, have always been subject to federal interventions and in some cases, the federal government has subsidized them. I can hardly understand why this government would not do the same in an area where industry is very active and where ferryboats services are very much needed.
Mention is also of the ports at Baie-Comeau and Sept-iles. I would like to say a few words about the latter. The committee members, including some opposition members, in particular the representative of the New Democratic party, came to visit the Sept-iles harbour and they all agreed that it did not meet the actual requirements of maritime traffic.
For the past three years, in keeping with the recommendations, I have been trying to get a new dock for this seaport from which 25 million tons of ore were shipped last year, giving it first place for shipping volume. An increase of some four million tons is expected this year, which means total shipments of some 30 million tons.


It is therefore most urgent that another dock be added to the present port facilities and I again ask that the Minister of Transport try to convince of this necessity the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) who over the past three years has been against the building of this new dock.
My colleagues from Newfoundland have commented on air transportation. I would add that some of the recommendations proposed extending the Baie-Comeau airport and I hope the minister will take good note of them.
When it comes to roads, I must say that everywhere the committee members travelled on this vast territory they expressed the desire that the isolated mining towns would be linked by a road network. I know that roads come under provincial jurisdiction, but if we examine the committee recommendations we see that they favor an agreement between the Newfoundland and Quebec governments in respect of road construction.
I think it is the responsibility of the federal as well as the provincial governments to get these very active and hard working populations out of their isolation. Once on the site, we talked a lot about roads. Of course, the committee then explained that the roads department came under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
As far as the other transportation systems are concerned, the committee heard some evidence and received more than 60 briefs. The committee then replied to witnesses that television was the responsibility of the Department of Communications.
The inhabitants, who are increasing in number from year to year, in view of the gigantic developments, are still without a television network. I think the government should look seriously into this matter, which seems to have been the case for a few years, but they have not yet come up with any suggestion.
I am glad to note that the House accepts unanimously the recommendations of this report. In visiting my constituency the committee has done an excellent job. I am convinced that the people acknowledge that. They were pleased to see members of Parliament coming to them, as they are not usually want to do, in order to assess local problems.
In co-operation with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, we often have to study various problems. He also has made recommandations. When this motion
March 6, 1970

was presented, I felt that the House should adopt it, and it did in fact do so. I wish to thank those who participated in this debate and who were all in favour of this report being concurred in.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in supporting the motion the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) has put forward at this particular time, I should like to say that a few minutes ago the minister said he was prepared to accept in principle the recommendations that were made by the committee I believe this is only proper. He said the government would look at the recommendations, but there was a great need for consultation at all levels in so far as some of the recommendations were concerned.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I agree that there is a great need for consultation at all levels because this is the basis upon which our federal system operates. The recommendations of the committee cover every area of the territory that we visited. I would like to say that, in the short time I have been a member of the committee, I have never seen as much participation by members in those areas which we visited on the trip as was the case this time. I should also like to say that I believe it is most important, now that the recommendations have been made by the committee, that they be considered seriously by the department and that those people who will be responsible for implementing them be made fully aware of the observations that have been made at the meetings of the committee.
I think that we should give some thought to whether we should move concurrence in a report of a committee when the report is tabled in the House. I understand that this decision is not left up to the chairman. I appreciate the fact that the chairman himself cannot move concurrence in a report unless the committee members instruct him to do so. I think that when committee reports are tabled in the House concurrence should be moved, particularly when there is unanimity among the committee members. This is what we should think about seriously if we want to make effective use of committees in this House.
In conclusion, I should like to say that we in this party have no hesitation at all in supporting the report and recommendations
Transport and Communications of the committee fully. It is a privilege for me, on behalf of our party, to urge that this motion be adopted unanimously.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: will make one of the briefest speeches on record. I simply wish to go on the record as supporting the motion of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) that the House concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. This is perhaps an unprecedented move in the sense that I understand it will be unanimously accepted by the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: With the qualifications of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).


John Howard Lundrigan: This action by the House points out the value of an efficient, aggressive, competent, able, effective, determined and dedicated opposition. Perhaps if we were in the Newfoundland legislature-and the Minister of Transport will appreciate that-I would repeat the whole sentence because this is certainly a sentiment one eminent politician on the Newfoundland scene does not appreciate.
I simply wish to go on record as supporting the motion of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. He has been very active in this area, and I think that the motion today for concurrence indicates his dedication to the report and the recommendations of the committee. I sincerely hope that the transportation problems in Newfoundland and Labrador will be at least partially solved as a result of the recommendations and that the government will take some initiative, not just play around with words as all governments and oppositions tend to do.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Depufy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.45 p.m. the House took recess.
March 6, 1970
4480	COMMONS DEBATES
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 20, consideration in committee of Bill C-183, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Faulkner in the Chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: When the committee rose on Friday, February 20, 1970, clause 1 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-"Agricultural Product".


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would be disposed to wait for a moment or two until the minister is able to be present because our questions will necessitate the information that is at the minister's disposal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am almost tempted to respond to agricultural questions, but I think it more appropriate that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, should respond in this regard and I believe he is on his way.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think the President of the Privy Council is being too modest for once in his life because, although he does not know very much, he probably knows as much as the Minister of Agriculture about these problems. As an alternative, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member for Don Valley, who is in the Chamber with his notes, could give us a brief explanation of the white paper. I am only trying to be helpful.


Mr. McBride:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me some of the members opposite could use at least a brief explanation of it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I doubt that we could be any more brief than your own minister. He is having a fair time with it himself.


Murray Arndell McBride: Brief and to the point.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I could make a note of the questions asked by hon. members and forward them to the Minister of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary as soon as one of them enters the House.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am certainly disposed to that suggestion if-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not hear it.


James Hugh Faulkner: The suggestion was that the minister would take notes of any questions and transmit them to the Parliamentary Secretary when he arrives.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, Mr. Chairman, we have not been reduced to that yet.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have a private member's bill in my name. We could probably dispose of that while we are waiting.


Thomas Miller Bell: Even under the presidential system there is no provision for other ministers to take notes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just trying to be helpful.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have the attention of the House leader. As we are not proceeding very quickly on this order of business, would he like to bring: order No. 74 before the House, and we could have a vote on the amendment that was put thereto?


Gerald William Baldwin: That is agriculture.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to take this opportunity to speak on agricultural matters, particularly as an Ontario minister and in view of the fact that this Bill C-183 deals with Ontario wheat and the Ontario wheat marketing situation. I am sure the hon. member would agree with some of the other hon. members who have spoken; for example, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-


An hon. Member:: There is no such riding.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -or whatever the riding of my hon. friend is, would agree with those hon. members that it is eminently desirable that Ontario wheat should be included in the provisions of this particular
March 6, 1970	COMMONS
statute. Therefore I would hope that if he has any commendatory remarks to make about the bill, or any suggestions as to the better administration of the Ontario wheat problems, he will do so and we will be most glad to hear him. If, of course, he has nothing to say on this question that is another matter, but we feel this is a valuable-


Gerald William Baldwin: We don't like the Ontario corn we have been hearing.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks that I should like to make because I was not able to be here two weeks ago. I want to follow my remarks with a question to the minister that I would like answered, but I think we should wait until the minister is here; otherwise, my remarks would be useless.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon.
member could have no more sympathetic ear than my own. I will be glad to bring to the attention of the minister what I am sure would be the well informed representations he will make. If he would like to start now, we will be glad to get him all possible answers to his questions.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Chairman, this order of business was announced last night, so the minister had ample warning to be here and could have been prepared. It was thought this item would be brought on immediately after the question period, but another order of business superseded it. The minister has no excuse for not being here. If the House leader has a reasonable excuse for the minister not being here, he should give it to the House now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it was in conformity with a request received from the opposition that we went ahead with the motion in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I agree with the hon. member that it would have been far more intelligent to proceed with the business as announced and dispose of this business at the regular time in accordance with the regular procedures of the House. However, we conceded priority to the hon. member and let him go ahead with his motion first, so the timetable has been upset. I am now in a position to announce that the Minister rather than the Parliamentary Secretary will be here shortly to listen to the hon. member's comments.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should issue communiques every five minutes on his progress.
DEBATES	4481
Radiation Emitting Devices Bill


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
refer to the remarks that were made by the House Leader last night, as recorded at page 4429 of Hansard:
If this Parliament is a duller place it is because of the incompetent leadership which the other side has got from the Leader of the Opposition.
I want to say right now, for the record, that if this is an example of competent leadership from the House Leader, I think there is something that needs attention.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, so that the record will be clear in this regard, I repeat that the gentlemen on the other side are mediocre infantry badly led by an incompetent leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that it would not hurt us just to sit quietly for a few minutes.


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, I think that is a very useful suggestion. There was a lengthy debate on this subject last night by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to waste time around here but I was wondering if somebody at the table could get a copy of Beauchesne to see if there is a precedent for this undue waste of time that has been brought about by the incompetence of the House leader. I think it is outrageous and I do not think it has ever happened in the history of this Parliament.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could suggest to the House that, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, we might rise, report progress, and agree to sit later this day. The second item of business for today could be called for which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



RADIATION EMITTING DEVICES BILL


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-14, respecting the sale and importation of certain radiation emitting devices, be read
March 6, 1970

Radiation Emitting Devices Bill the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Monleiih:: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not going to say anything?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), of introducing in the House of Commons, for consideration by hon. members, Bill S-14, an act respecting the sale and importation of certain radiation emitting devices. This bill, which was introduced earlier this session in the Senate, was studied by the Senate Committee on Health, Science and Welfare and was given third reading and passed by the Senate on February 19, 1970.
In this age of rapid technological progress, we have witnessed, among other things, an electronic explosion. This technology, connected with electro-magnetic radiation and its many applications in the fields of medicine, industry, education and entertainment, has been accompanied by many dangers. The Department of National Health and Welfare has, for some years, been involved in the health aspect of the use of radioactive substances and recently has become increasingly aware of the need for control in the design and sale of devices which emit electro-magnetic radiation.
Bill S-14 deals specifically with the sale and importation of devices that may produce and emit dangerous radiation. It will enable the Governor in Council to establish minimum safety standards with respect to the design and construction of radiation devices not involving atomic energy or radioactivity, which are already controlled under the Atomic Energy Control Act. The purpose of the bill is to protect the public from a particularly insidious hazard; for example, exposure to radiation that may escape from the device and harm people in the vicinity.
Radiation is a broad term. The bill refers to electromagnetic and ultrasonic radiation. The radiation-emitting devices covered by this definition include x-ray machines, microwave ovens, laser generators and ultra-sound equipment. It also includes certain electronic devices which emit radiation as an unwanted by-product of their operation. None of these instruments, designed principally for scientific, medical and industrial use, are presently subject to federal control.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1

The need for safety standards for radiation equipment has been recognized for many years. Radioactive devices are strictly controlled under the Atomic Energy Control Regulations. The other forms of radiation, equally dangerous, should be subject to similar safety restrictions. Many scientists in Canada and other countries have urged the necessity for this, and for good reason, because the effects of radiation on health are particularly serious.
It is well known, for example, that exposure to even small amounts of radiation can increase the incidence of leukemia and cancer and produce genetic damage. Although the experts in this field cannot give, in quantitative terms, a precise measure of the number of persons affected, they are convinced that even low level emissions, so-called "stray" or "leakage" radiation, adds in some degree to the statistical incidence of these diseases. The seriousness of these effects, even where the risk is low, makes it imperative to hold radiation emissions to the very lowest levels possible. To do so, standards must be set and maintained by regulatory control.
Particularly important is the provision of standards governing the design and construction of the devices. They apply before the device is put to use and constitute the basic first line of protection. It is with such standards that Bill S-14 is concerned. Proper design of equipment can often reduce unwanted exposures very significantly without impairing the usefulness of the device. Appropriate standards for this purpose have been recommended by scientists associated with the World Health Organization and other international agencies.
Not all these recommendations, even the very simplest, are being followed at the present time in Canada. In the case of x-rays, for example, a recent survey of dental x-ray units in the Ottawa area, carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare, showed that a large percentage of the x-ray machines in use had one or more shortcomings, as judged by the recommended standard, which could result in unnecessary exposure to patient or to the operator.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Microwaves, in addition to their use in radar and communication networks, are finding extensive application in commercial equipment such as ovens and dryers. They are used in automatic food vending machines, restaurant kitchens and many industrial operations where fast drying or heating is needed.
March 6. 1970
111 effects reported in humans include eye cataracts, blood changes and disturbance of the nervous system. Evidence of a statistical increase in the incidence of eye cataracts among persons exposed to microwave emissions has been documented.
To prevent such adverse health effects, international agencies have established recommended standards with respect to radiation emissions, that is, the leakage radiation. Nevertheless, in a recent survey carried out by the United States department of health, education and welfare, it was found that a substantial proportion of the microwave ovens tested emitted radiation in excess of the standard. The Department of National Health and Welfare is currently conducting a survey of ovens and dryers in the greater Ottawa area and has found some similar deficiencies.
Laser devices are now extensively used in hospitals and in industry. Furthermore, they are being sold to educational institutions as teaching aids. This type of device is relatively new and uses are being developed rapidly. The small, but very intense beam of laser light is known to be particularly harmful to the eyes. Clinical evidence of damage to the retina of the eye, caused by accidentally viewing inadequately safeguarded equipment, has been reported in the United States and in other countries.
Ultrasonic devices are finding many applications in medical practice and in industry. Until recently it was thought that the passage of ultrasonic energy through the body, as carried out in medical diagnostic procedures, is not hazardous, but recently there have been reports of experiments on animals which indicate an effect on growth patterns. There is also some indication that ultrasonic radiation can interact with reproductive cells in a way which could produce genetic defects.
The bill, therefore, covers a wide range of devices which are used primarily for industrial, medical and scientific applications. It will ensure that defective, sub-standard equipment is kept off the market. This, of course, is only one aspect of the radiation protection problem. Other aspects such as safe installation and operation are not dealt with in the bill because they come under provincial jurisdiction. Some provinces have already passed legislation along these fines. Bill S-14 can be considered as complementary to, not conflicting with, these provincial regulations.
Radiation Emitting Devices Bill
Finally, I should mention that the bill is drawn in a way which envisages the introduction of regulations on a gradual, step-bystep basis. Specific categories of devices will have to be defined and standards established for each. There will be ample opportunity for discussion with manufacturers as to any modifications necessary to meet the standard proposed. This procedure is possible because the hazard is viewed as, principally, a long term one. Adverse health effects would be expected only after very long periods of exposure. Therefore, except ini unusual cases, it is unlikely that the introduction of standards will necessitate immediate and drastic design changes in present models.
When Bill S-14, after receiving second reading in this House, is studied in detail by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I expect to introduce an amendment to subclause (h) of clause 2, changing the definition of radiation emitting device so that it will mean any device which emits radiation. In this way, devices such as television sets may be included in the regulations to the act if approved by the Governor in Council.
Bill S-14 is an important piece of legislation and one more step taken by this government, and particularly by the Department of National Health and Welfare, to protect the health of the Canadian people. On behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I commend this legislation to all hon. members, as it is in the public interest.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I trust the Minister of Agriculture will remain here during this discussion. I see him behind the curtain. As long as he stays, it will be all right; we do not want to lose him now for another 25 minutes.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given an explanation of this bill. It will, of course be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs where it will receive a careful and more detailed examination. I have read the bill and I do not find much there with which to quarrel.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this measure would cover X-ray machines, microwave ovens and certain laser beam installations. I can understand that danger might be involved in handling these things- that dangerous radiations might be emitted, and that some provision is necessary. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that surveys were being conducted in the Ottawa area and that some deficiencies have been

4484	COMMONS
Radiation Emitting Devices Bill discovered. I agree that action should be taken to protect the public in this respect. I am pleased to note that, generally speaking, equipment presently in use will not be affected by the legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary intimated, to the best of his ability I gather, that most of the equipment presently in use would not have to be discarded. So, no monetary penalty win be incurred by present users.
I am wondering just where television sets might fit into this legislation. Wiould they come under the Hazardous Products Act, or would they be dealt with here? I was pleased to hear the hon. gentleman mention that the regulations would be brought in step by step, on a gradual basis. I note clause 12(2) suggests that reasonable opportunity will be afforded to manufacturers, distributors and other interested persons to make representations to the minister. We are in favour of this.
There is one clause, however, with which I have to disagree. I refer to clause 13, which simply means that an accused is guilty until he has proved his innocence. This seems to reflect a trend of thinking which has been developing in government circles. To my mind, this is not justice. I believe it is up to the Crown to prove guilt. The clause reads:
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This puts the onus directly on the accused to prove that he did not know his employee or agent might have been guilty of some offence. I think it is for the Crown to prove that the accused must have known. As far as I can see, the trend today in government activities is that the authorities seem to feel they, themselves, are above the law. The income tax department have been carrying on this way for years, and I just do not like it. We are putting the finger of guilt on the accused until he proves that he is innocent, something that I think is a very unfortunate, indeed a bad, trend.
With those few remarks I will resume my seat; when the bill does reach committee, closer examination of its details will be made.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make on this bill. I too, support the principle

DEBATES	March 6. 1970
of the bill and look forward to examining it in detail in committee. I have really one point only. I am not quite sure whether this bill will affect any equipment manufactured in Canada that emits radiation. In this regard, I am concerned for the good name of Canada abroad when equipment of this kind is exported . If the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with this point, then I missed it.
I suggest that if there is no law governing the matter, we should at least apply some pressure to make certain that equipment manufactured in Canada and sold abroad must conform to some sort of regulation. We have a large stake in export markets abroad. Certainly, as far as export sales are concerned, I wish that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would get busy and sell some atomic energy plants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-183, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act-Mr. Olson-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. When the committee rose on Friday, February 20, 1970 clause 1 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-"Agricultural Product".


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Chairman, this is one amendment to the act with which I think most of us will agree, particularly the wheat producers in the province of Ontario, because it was at their request the minister brought forward the amendment. Most of the remarks that I might have made today were made previously in the House, I believe two weeks ago today, so I will not take the time to cover old ground.
However, further to anything that was said on that day, I should like to put a couple of suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture, who 1 am glad to see has been able to make it to the House. Perhaps I should make a speech for a few minutes on the problem of keeping a well-run and well-managed House, though a lot was said about that yesterday.
March 6, 1970


Mr. Olson:: You will be sorry if you do.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The experience of today only proves that much that was said yesterday by opposition members was quite correct. However, I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question. I do not know whether or not we are on the subject, but is he talking about hogwash?


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes; the hogwash you hear from that side of the House.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Only the people here who come from "Hogtown" know about hogwash.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not come from "Hogtown".


Robert Elgin McKinley: Recently in the House it was announced that assistance would be given to the western wheat producers not to grow wheat. I take no exception to that at all, though I doubt very much whether the proposals that were announced will do the job the government intends them to do. Be that as it may, a certain amount of money is going to be spent in assisting western wheat producers.
The Wheat Producers Marketing Board of Ontario feel that the wheat producers of Ontario should not be left out of the picture altogether. In view of the government's failure to sell western grain, it is becoming quite obvious that many western farmers are going to diversify and go into some other type of farming operation, mainly the feeding of livestock. This will no doubt create a hardship for the eastern farmers by diminishing the traditional role that they have considered to be theirs.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This was part of the reason Eastern farmers requested this amendment to allow the minister to guarantee loans to the Wheat Producers Marketing Board of Ontario, who will make initial payments to farmers. This guarantee of initial payments will be, in effect, a floor price. The Wheat Producers Marketing Board of Ontario has done a tremendous job of moving the wheat that has been grown by the producers. Oftentimes, in fact most of the time, all this wheat has to be kept in storage for considerable lengths of time until markets can be found. When mar-
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act kets are found, it is helpful if there is a considerable amount of wheat in storage to fill these orders. This is the traditional method of marketing that has developed in the last three years.
A charge of 17 cents a bushel is deducted to pay the storage costs. This amount has been sufficient to cover the cost up to now, but beginning in the next crop year 17 cents a bushel will not be sufficient to pay the storage costs and also fulfil the subsidized contracts for export sales that are necessary to move the wheat. Because of this fact a request has been made by the Ontario Wheat Producers that Ontario grain, particularly wheat, come under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in order that government funds could be used to pay part of the storage costs that are entailed in the marketing of this wheat.
I should like to ask the minister if it would be possible, under this legislation, for the government to pay a certain portion of the storage costs that are necessary in the marketing of wheat from Ontario. Really, we are asking for no more than the western wheat producer receives. I believe the government pays the storage charges on everything over 178 million bushels, which would mean at the present time it is paying the storage charges on close to one billion bushels. I do not think this is too much for the Ontario farmer to ask. I should like to ask the minister, either now or at some later time, to give us an indication of the possibility of something like this being done to assist the eastern producer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to apologize to the committee for not being here when this item was being considered at two o'clock or shortly thereafter. For the information of those who are interested in agricultural matters, I was at a series of meetings today, starting at nine o'clock this morning with the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Canadian livestock feed board for a number of reasons which I will not explain now.
In respect of the question that has just been raised by the hon. member for Huron, there is under Section 4 of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, a provision where the minister may, with respect to any agreement under this act and with the approval of the .Governor in Council, prescribe variations in the initial price and that sort of thing. It also includes the maximum amount that may be allowed under the agreement for processing, carrying or selling costs with respect to the marketing of an agricultural product.
4486	COMMONS
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act
We are talking specifically about wheat grown in Ontario, which this amendment was designed to cover, so these things can be taken into account in the agreement that is made between the minister, under the authority of this act, and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. It seemed to me that the hon. member was not putting the question exactly in that context. It seemed to me he was asking whether we could use the authority of this act to directly pay the storage charges on that wheat. If that was the question, as I understood it, the answer is that we cannot use the authority of this act for that purpose. What we can do is take into account these other costs such as storing, and I will repeat them, processing, carrying and selling. Those costs can be taken into consideration when we agree to the guarantee, that would be provided by this act.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I thank the minister for his answer. I should like to ask whether it would present a different picture if the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board became an agency marketing board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It could, but, of course, as I understand it, some subsequent action by Parliament would be necessary to provide for a direct payment for storage. As my hon. friend knows, in the other case he referred to the authority given there is specifically contained within the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which was passed by this House in 1956.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Could Ontario wheat not come under that Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, not unless that Act were amended.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have some specific questions I should like to put to the minister which are not in opposition to the amendment. I think there should be more definite information available to those who will be affected by this amendment. If I could get it on the record we might save a lot of time and worry perhaps in future considerations.
I should like to ask the minister, first, since initially the request for this amendment was forwarded by the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board, is it possible for the Wheat Board and the wheat producers to take advantage of the initial payment provided for in the regulations and the bill, without having other aspects of their activities regulated and regi-mentated? I think the farmers and producers

DEBATES	March 6, 1970
would be interested in knowing, through the minister, whether they are in a position to request money from the government for the initial payments on this type of wheat, or are there strings attached?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the word "regimentation" and all of the others involved in this at all. All this bill is designed to do is provide them with a government guarantee so they can obtain the credit to make the initial payments. The minister, under this act, is required to make sure that the security is sufficient to take care of that guarantee, taking into account, I believe it is three years marketing returns from this crop. He is obliged to make certain that the initial payments are set in compliance with the performance of the market for the three years previous, and take into account such other things as are spelled out in the measure, when entering into a contract with the marketing board on behalf of the government of Canada for the funds that are used in the initial payments.


Harold Warren Danforth: In the latter part of the minister's statement I think he started to get at the crux of the matter as far as producers are concerned. I am familiar with the terms of the act. It seems to me, if I understand it correctly, that if the producers in Ontario are prepared to accept loans under this bill for the initial payments, it also follows that no subsequent payments can be made until they receive the consent of the minister. When these initial payments have been made-and this is one regulation I will refer to-is there also not an implied provision that the minister and his department then concern themselves directly with charges incurred in transporting, storing, processing and handling of grains?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not on a day-to-day or month-to-month basis, Mr. Chairman. We are concerned about following the operations not only of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board but of all other boards which from time to time ask to be brought under this act. All we are interested in is that there be sufficient security left for the initial guarantee. If at any time during the year the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board would want to make a further payment, or indeed a final payment to the producers, our interest would be to make sure there is not a deficit in the pool, so that the guarantee is taken care of at the end of the marketing season for whatever crop is involved.
March 6, 1970

If, at any later date after the initial payment has been made, the board could indicate it had surplus funds that it wished to disburse or pay out to the members, and there were still assets in the pool after the payment of the initial guarantee, we would have no objection to the board making that disbursement.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy and patience of the minister. I am trying to have the facts placed on the record so they may be available to the producers. As I understand it, under this act the initial payment does not necessarily have to be 80 per cent of the value of the product, but no initial payment could be instituted or promoted by the pool or marketing agency without direct consultation and agreement with the Department of Agriculture.
The initial payment does not necessarily have to be 80 per cent; it can be 20 per cent, 35 per cent or 70 per cent of the estimated value of the crop. This would mean that the farmers would receive the agreed initial payment which could be 60 per cent of the market price, and there would be no further payment except through consultation between the operators of the agency and the minister at a subsequent time which could be three, five or eight months later. This is the type of regulation I am trying to have the minister explain, for the benefit of those who will have to consider whether or not they wish to accept it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not quite sure I understand the hon. member. Is he suggesting that after the agreement had been signed in respect of the initial payment a situation would arise whereby there would be a deterioration in the value of the crop so that a substantial change would be required? If this is the question, I suppose the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board would be interested in taking whatever action may be appropriate to make sure that their initial payment was not continuing at a rate in excess of what was considered to be fair taking into account the value or the then amended value of the crop.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, in pursuing this matter further-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should say that I have been advised we have never found ourselves in a position under any of these agreements in which we have had to ask the agency to lower, or even where the board has asked us to lower the initial payment part way through the selling season.
DEBATES	4487
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act


Harold Warren Danforth: There is another problem that disturbs me in considerating this matter. Perhaps I might put the question in two parts. If there should be a disposition on the part of the eastern producers to accept this proposition, will they not of necessity be forced into some sort of pooling arrangement? Second, as I understand it, very often there are varying grades of wheat even here in eastern Canada and some grades may be sold even below the initial price. If there should be additional sales in one grade, is it not within the power of the minister's department and the agency to divert this money to the government coffers in order that the government regain its initial payment? From my understanding of the act it would seem that if some grades sell at greater than the initial payment, and other grades sell at lower than the initial payment, there is recourse for the government under this particular- proposition.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the first part of the question may I say that that is very definitely so. There would have to be pooling by the producers who sell to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. Indeed, that is the sole purpose, not only of this amendment but of the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act. When it was passed in 1939 it was called an act to assist and encourage co-operative marketing of agricultural products.
In response to the second part of the question concerning what would happen with regard to the value of various grades, and what would happen in respect of the pay-out or transfer of money among those various grades, certainly the money would not come to government coffers but there might be some money from certain grades, depending on when the sale was made at a higher price, that would find its way into the pool of the agency during the season. But that, of course, is based on the assumption that there would be a loss on a pool.
When I talk about this matter I am talking about receipts for the whole pool in excess of the total initial payment. If there should be an excess in the pool over the initial payment, the agency would have authority to make a final payment or an interim payment that would vary from grade to grade taking into account the selling price of the various grades. But in the case where there would be a loss on the over-all pool-and just to repeat, that is when the total amount of the receipts from the pool would be less than the total amount of the initial payment-of
4488	COMMONS
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act course this would have to be taken into account. It would not come into government coffers but, of course, it would be in the agency's treasury.
I suppose that is why the limit is 80 per cent of the value of these crops for the last three years, so that the initial price can be as high as possible without there being too much of a risk of paying out more on the initial payment than the final price would be. So the answer to the first question is very definitely yes; pooling is the whole idea of this act. In respect of the second part of the question, I do not see any problem if there is not a deficit in the pool. If there should be a deficit in the pool, I suppose some of these arguments could be made.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question, if I may have your indulgence. I can see that the farmers certainly would expect that the working of this system would be in the form of a pool. Under this act, and within the prerogative of the agency, is there the power, or could there be the power to set up definite quotas? I wonder whether the minister would, for the record, repeat what he said. Since this legislation comes under provincial jurisdiction, no agency can be set up without the whole matter being referred to the farmers by way of a plebiscite. Am I correct in this assumption?
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With regard to the first part of the question as to whether this act would automatically set up quotas, the answer is no.
I think that the terms and conditions under which the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board operates now would be, in effect, that if they decided to have quotas there would be a sharing of the available market so that one farmer would not be able to deliver 5,000 bushels and another 500. But that is not part of this act; it is within other regulations.
In so far as a plebiscite is concerned, I am not quite sure about that. I would say, off the top of my head, that to set up a marketing agency for any commodity under Ontario law requires some kind of plebiscite. Whether that is true in all cases, I do not know; but I think that that process has already been started in so far as the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board is concerned. We would not require any further plebiscite for the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board to enter into a contract with us so that we would guarantee them some money for an initial payment. As I

DEBATES	March 6, 1970
said, I stand to be corrected on that because I do not know what the terms and conditions of their rules are, but I think that a plebiscite to set up the marketing board in the first instance was held some time ago.


Robert Elgin McKinley: My understanding is that no type of marketing board will be set up for Ontario wheat without a plebiscite first being held. This is the assumption under which the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board is working at present. With regard to some of the remarks I made earlier, the minister stated that an amendment would be necessary to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in order to have Ontario wheat storage charges supplemented by the government in a similar fashion to the western wheat storage charges. I ask the minister if he would be prepared, at the request of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, to bring forth such an amendment with a view to providing assistance in respect of wheat storage charges.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That rises a completely new dimension that has no application within this act. I am not prepared to give a categorical answer to that question in the context of this debate.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I should like to ask the minister, then, whether this request has been put to him by the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not recall that it has. I am not saying that it has never been included in any of their briefs to me, but I do not recall that this kind of request has been made. There is one other thing I should say. When we enter into this kind of agreement at the request of any commodity marketing board, we do in fact have consultations with the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board or with any other specific marketing board.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Huron mentioned that under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the government was paying storage on a billion bushels of wheat. I am sure he would agree with me that this figure should be corrected for the record. Someone said there is a billion bushels of wheat out there. There may or there may not be that much-I do not think anyone knows for sure-but much of it is held in the farmers' hands. I am not sure how much is in the process of being handled at present, but the storage payment is made on what is in store at the end of the crop year.
March 6. 1970	COMMONS
If the minister would care to comment, he could probably give us an approximate figure.
I do not know whether he carries that information in his head, but the figure would not approach a billion bushels. I can understand the concern of the Ontario people about setting up this system and knowing for sure how it works, when out west we are looking at a Wheat Board marketing system which is now going to go into wheat production control in a fairly large way and direct the amount of production in that area without the benefit of a special act of this House.
We are going to institute a radical change in the nature of our farming. This may or may not be true of the Ontario wheat producers. The Ontario farmers are more fortunate than we are, in that they have a larger number of options open to them in terms of production, due to the nature of their land, the environment and the fact that they operate very close to a large market. I thought some light might be shed on whether the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce gives any assistance to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board in marketing their products. Do they help them find markets?
A statement was made here not too long ago that an opportunity for a substantial sale in the United Kingdom market was not exploited. 1 wondered at the time what aid was given to this agency to seek out markets.
I would be very pleased if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture would comment on this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There have been a number of cases in which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been very helpful in promoting, and instrumental in completing some significant overseas sales of Ontario wheat. Last year it was Syria, but there are a number of other cases in which I know they have been involved.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I recall that the other day I had an opportunity to glance briefly at Hansard wherein it was mentioned that there are a few other products, although not very many, which have received marketing assistance under this act. It seems to me that in the past there has been sometimes intervention on behalf of a group of producers when they needed assistance. I am wondering if it is the intention of the Department of Agriculture to use this act more extensively in assisting farmers. There is in my constituency a small
DEBATES	4489
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act group of farmers who are interested in marketing potatoes. They were in that business for a short period of time but had some difficulty. The storage facilities are still there.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A request went to the department for assistance for this type of operation. I talked to the deputy minister about it on the phone. I wonder what is the attitude or approach of the Department of Agriculture to this type of application. Are they actively encouraging the expansion, in these areas, of the use of the act-that is, in small, isolated areas? I think this would be a fair way to put it. Are they actively encouraging the use of this act under these kinds of circumstances?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this act, of course, are open at all times to commodities that are sold under a co-operative arrangement. All of those things are listed in clause 1 (a): milk and milk products, vegetables and vegetable products, livestock and livestock products, fruit and fruit products, poultry and poultry products, honey, maple syrup, tobacco, and any other product of agriculture designated by the Governor in Council. So there is no limitation there.
At the present time, as has been pointed out, we have contracts for this kind of credit for processing apples in Quebec, and for white beans and yellow-eye beans in Ontario; but it has been used over the years from time to time for such things as forage crop seeds, potatoes, ranch-bred fox pelts, fresh apples, apples for processing, maple syrup, tobacco and beans. So it is available. But there are certain conditions such as administrative arrangements that are necessary to pool this product and to make an initial payment on it. That is what the measure is designed for.
With respect to the other part of the question as to whether we encourage it or not, certainly when I talk to vegetable-growing cooperatives, for example, I remind them that we have this act and that we are prepared to discuss and negotiate with them some kind of a contract so that it can make an initial payment. This, of course, is aimed at relieving some of the pressure at harvest season so that one farmer does not reduce his price substantially in the short run, because in our view there are many cases where it is advantageous for these crops to be pooled and sold at a uniform price. That is sometimes a better price, or a more beneficial price than the very low prices at harvest time when everybody is
March G, 1970
4490	COMMONS
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act rushing to market with their crop, whatever it happens to be. They get a substantially higher price at some other period of the year.
So that while we have not got an active campaign going, we do in fact remind these boards and commissions that this act is in place and we are prepared to discuss with them the arrangements that would be necessary to have a uniform price paid to all the producers who belong to the co-operative or the pool.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I notice the minister said "boards and commissions." What is the minimum number of farmers who can form themselves into a co-operative? I assume that a co-operative can take action under this act. Is that right?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do not have a minimum number but what we have to look at is whether the volume of production that is in the hands of these people who wish to make application is sufficient so that it will have an effect on the market; in other words, so that it will work.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then I take it it would not apply, or would not be made to apply to a small group of vegetable producers or potato growers who were in an isolated pocket, as it were, who would not be able to affect the market structure as such. Am I right on that?
I would like to have this matter defined, Mr. Chairman, because, as I say, a specific group of producers requested from the minister's office information on how to do this sort of thing. I would like to know whether a group of producers can do it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will look at section 3(6) of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act he will note the following:
No agreement shall be made under this section unless the co-operative plan applies to such a proportion of the primary producers within a certain geographical area or to such a proportion of an agricultural product produced in such area that the minister is of opinion that the marketing of the aforesaid agricultural product under the cooperative plan will benefit the primary producers.
That means, as I understand, it, in layman's language that the geographical area, whether it is large or small or whether it is isolated or not, is not the particular point-but there shall be enough producers within that geographical area, however small or large it may be, that it will be of benefit to the primary producers within the area. If there were an insufficient number of primary producers in


the co-operative who were selling their product into the pool, so that some or many of their neighbours were able to do things that were not of benefit to the producers and frustrated the co-operative effort of the producers, I suppose we have to be of the opinion that it would not benefit the primary producers to attempt to hold their product and sell it in the market on a gradual basis, assuming there would be some time later a price better than that available in the harvest season. We would have to take that into account, but I do not believe it excludes a small area if there is in the area a sufficient number of producers who agree to pool their crops.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I thank the minister for his explanation. I think he is being as clear about it as he can. But I point out that one of the people in his department suggested that if the people applying, after carefully studying the act and the commentary decided it might be feasible under the act, they should make a request of the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think some clarification might be useful with respect to this type of application, so that if there are only half a dozen people involved they will not spend a lot of time and effort trying to come under a system that does not apply to them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think there is necessarily very much time and effort, or indeed expense, involved. It is very difficult for us to give a definition of the whole of the clause in order to provide for all the variations that could in fact emerge from among the wide variety of crops covered. But if that group, no matter how large or small it may be, could give us an outline of the plan it has in mind for pooling-for selling, if you like-their total crop, I think we could give far more specific answers more in line with what the hon. member is asking than we could without having any conception of what the producers have in mind.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this first item of the clause, though I did speak on it on the former occasion. Before doing so, I might say I was rather interested in the explanation the minister gave with regard to his delay in getting to the House today. He inferred that he was at a series of committee meetings that might have something to do with a dairy policy-
March 6, 1970	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, that is right.


William Marvin Howe: -that is going to be announced one of these days. In that connection, I hope the minister will take cognizance of the recent press release issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that skimmed milk powder on world markets is selling at a much better price. There was a paragraph in the release which said that due to this fact, the dairy farmers in Canada will be much better off. I hope that when the policy comes out the $10 million that has been extracted from the dairy farmers of Canada will be put back in, due to the fact that skimmed milk powder is selling at a better price in world market. That statement is right in the press release. Perhaps the minister had better read it next time before he sends it out.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The exaggeration may be in the interpretation.


William Marvin Howe: It is right there. In regard to the legislation before us, I share some of the skepticism that has been shown in this House, not only by Ontario members but also by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who has had a great deal of experience with pooling, order permit books and legislation of all kinds that has entered into the lives of the people in the western provinces with regard to the wheat problem.
This problem has been accentuated in the last year because the government has not sold wheat the way it should have and has left it piled up on the farms and the railroads. Now the government is entering into a program of deciding how much wheat is to be grown in designated areas and is going to pay farmers not to grow grain. There is a story about the same kind of program that was carried on in the western United States. A chap from that area came to visit me, and when I asked how many acres he had, he said he had 800. I asked, "All in crop?" He said, "No, it is in the soil bank and the government is paying me for not growing it." "Oh", I said, "then you are not growing any?" He said, "Oh, yes; I rented a farm across the road."
This is what happens under government control and with the government interfering in people's lives. This is the feeling we have sometimes about legislation such as this. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister about the last item in this bill. This bothers me because it almost indi-
DEBATES	4491
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act cates that never again will legislation such as this have to appear before the House. It reads:
any other product of agriculture designated by the Governor in Council;
I ask the minister if this means what I think it means, that the Governor in Council is once again interfering in the lives of the farmers of Canada by deciding which of his products will come under this marketing authority.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean that at all. That was put in the act in 1939 and it is not up for amendment now.


William Marvin Howe: Then it should be removed from the act, because it says:
any other product of agriculture designated by the Governor in Council;
In other words, does that mean that any other product, whether wheat, oats, barley, rice or anything else, can be brought under this measure by the Governor in Council?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it does. But the government does not bring it under this act. The only thing that happens under this act is when farmers producing a certain commodity band together in a pool or co-operative agreement and come to the Minister of Agriculture, and through him to the Governor in Council, to ask that the particular commodity in which they are interested be made eligible for a guarantee by us so that they can make an initial payment to the farmer. That is all.
There is no possibility, and it has never been done ini 31 years, that the government would impose this provision upon anyone. The initiative is completely in the opposite direction. That clause is in there so that if there is some other commodity that does not fit any particular definition, it would not be completely excluded. There is no possibility that the government is going to include a commodity under this act for any purpose except at the request of the co-operative marketing agencies.


William Marvin Howe: That may be so, Mr. Chairman. Probably this is correct and this government would not consider anything of this type.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Nor would any other government.


William Marvin Howe: My first question is with regard to the dairy policy that is coming up. Will the minister give consideration to this news item
March 6, 1970

Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act sent out by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and look again at that $10 million?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not under this act. The hon. member knows very well that is completely irrelevant to this act.


William Marvin Howe: The minister put that in himself when he came into the House and was trying to explain why he was not here earlier. I have a perfect right to discuss dairy policy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not in my view.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


William C. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I should like to ask the minister. If this act goes into effect, will it remove the possibility of wheat being placed under the stabilization act for establishing a floor price?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Shall clause 1 carry?


Harold Warren Danforth: No, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Kent-Essex.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, the minister's remarks have created some doubt in my mind and I should like an explanation. I am always suspicious of the fine print in bills which says "and other regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the Governor in Council", These regulations that are prescribed from time to time, mostly when Parliament is not sitting, cause great concern to many members on this side of the House. The minister stated that initial payments may be anywhere from 35 per cent to 80 per cent of the estimated value of the product to be disposed of under this agency.
Under this avenue producers could be bound by pooling, by quotas, by accepting directives as to where they may send their produce, when they may deliver it and other regulations which could be prescribed under the terms and powers of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. Would the minister indicate what advantage this is to the wheat producers of eastern Canada, if initial payments are based on the equity of the crop, over the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board itself going to the bank and obtaining moneys without all these other regulations being entailed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, that is a decision the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board would have to make. I know they have asked us if we could amend this act so that they could be included, because the result of the provision in the act away back in 1939 excluded them. They seem to think there is some advantage to them in having the credit guaranteed by the Minister of Agriculture under the authority of this act, or they would not have asked us.
I think all the other questions the hon. member has raised should be referred to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board, because they make the regulations. Under this act, all we need is to be satisfied that the initial payment, the part that we guarantee, is such that on a reasonable prediction, and taking into account the value of that product for the last three years, it is reasonably secure. That is all there is to it. On the other part of the question, Bill C-183 does not call for any changes in the authority to make regulations. All it calls for is the amendment so that wheat grown in Ontario can come under the act. It is as simple as that.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is not as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. The fact remains that the minister has not indicated the advantage in obtaining the money through the government compared with obtaining it through the bank. Is it not true that the government guarantees the initial payment? Somebody has to pay interest on the moneys involved. Are the guarantees through the banks? Who pays the interest? Is it subtracted from the payments made for the product itself? These are questions that concern me.
o (3:40 p.m.)
There is another question, Mr. Chairman, which deeply concerns me. The minister stated that a request was made under this act by the wheat producers. The request for this change was made by the directors of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. I am sure the members have confidence in the board. I am very disturbed about the implication that because the producers of Ontario, eastern Canada, and areas of British Columbia are now under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board, by a simple amendment-the addition of one word in this act-they can be saddled with pooling and with quotas.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is wrong.


Harold Warren Danforth: They can be saddled with an initial payment.
March 6, 1970	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister indicated this afternoon that all these things are possible.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know the hon. member is reasonable, but the point he has completely overlooked is that they must apply to us. We do not ask them to form these boards or, even if boards are in existence, to come to us. All this bill does is provide us with authority to make a guarantee for the finances they require to make the initial payments. The initiative to do that is with them. It does not change the quotas, areas, constitution or terms and conditions of a co-operative marketing board: all it does is give us an opportunity to provide them with funds for an initial payment.
The hon. member asked what advantage this would be. I suggest the advantage would probably be that they may get a slightly more favourable interest rate if the government of Canada guarantees the credit. I suggest they might even be able to get a larger amount of credit if it is guaranteed by the federal government. Most members of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board think these advantages would be desirable in their operations to maximize their returns to producers.


Harold Warren Danforth: I appreciate the patience and the courtesy of the minister, but I think this matter should be clarified for the benefit of the producers. What the minister says in the main is correct, but the fact remains that this change in the act enlarges the powers of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board to such a degree that they are in a position to establish initial payments. Under the provisions of the provincial act they are unable to establish quotas and all the other regulations I have outlined. Without this amendment they could not establish an initial quota or an initial payment.
In effect, this act will make it possible-not probable-for the wheat producers in eastern Canada to find themselves in the same position as the wheat producers in western Canada. If the minister is correct in stating that the marketing board is not changed and can negotiate with the federal government to this degree, I point out that this can be done without other producers in Ontario being able to indicate through a plebiscite whenever they wish it.
I wish to raise one more point before the minister replies. Under the provincial marketing scheme, if there is a petition by the growers for a plebiscite on the question of dis-21774-7
DEBATES	4493
Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act solving a particular marketing agency, the provincial government will grant it. If I understand the terms of this act, if the government has guaranteed loans and made an initial payment it certainly will not be disposed to having a plebiscite held to abandon a marketing scheme. If there is a loan from the goverment on initial payments and an equity on the crop of the growers, is it not a fact that a vote or plebiscite under those conditions could not be entertained?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Ontario wheat producers can do anything they like within the rules and the law, so long as this money is repaid or the liability of this guarantee is removed. That is all. We are not suggesting that they have to change. If the hon. member is under the impression that this act will do a terrible disservice to the Ontario wheat producers either directly or indirectly, we should take another look at it. However, I think all it is doing is removing the provisions of the act which exclude Ontario wheat even if an application were made to us. It is not changing anything else.
Through a series of changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act over the last 30 years, the Ontario producers of wheat have been excluded. As I explained in my opening statement, Ontario wheat was included in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, in the first instance, before the war. There was an amendment in 1947 or 1948 which removed Ontario wheat from the designated area under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but this act still excluded wheat. What we are now doing is changing it to mean any kind of grain other than wheat that is grown in the designated area of the Wheat Board. Therefore, Ontario wheat is not automatically excluded. That is all it is.
I fail to see the relevance of the hon. member's contention that this change will do a disservice to the wheat producers and the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. All it is doing is giving authority to make the provisions of this act available to the Ontario producers in the same way as all the other products that are listed under clause 1, and under the same terms and conditions as the other commodities listed in clause 1.
We are not asking them to change their rules respecting quotas, etc., but if they make application to us for a guarantee of the money to make an initial payment, we will now be able to do so. If this amendment is not made to the act, we will have to say that wheat has been excluded, including wheat
March 6, 1970

Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Act from Ontario. It is also involved in the exclusion. We are trying to tidy up the act so these people can have access to the same kind of financing, under the same terms, as producers of the other commodities; that is all.
I fail to see where there is any disservice to them. They indicated it will be of help. Even if we change the act, if they collectively agree they do not want to make application for the guarantee, there is no change. They just do not make it. However, if we provide a guarantee and there is a great deal of money loaned, we have to protect that money by security. Perhaps that could be done by having the security of whatever volumes of wheat were in any position. Our only terms are that we be able to recover the initial payment made; that is all.


Harold Warren Danforth: The initial concern I am expressing is that now producers of wheat are able to make the decision as to when they will sell their wheat, what price they are willing to accept for it, where they shall deliver it, whether they want to store it and for how long. My fear is that once this system is entered into, the farmers will lose much of the power they have over their products. We have seen this happen before. On many of the commodities already under this act there are very strict provisions as to the allocation of tobacco, for example, and the agencies have definite control over the disposal of products.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I would not have felt this concern had I received an assurance that the farmers will be able to see the regulations and then determine whether to accept them. Had the facts been placed before the farmers, I would have been perfectly prepared to let this bill pass. Perhaps we could get further ahead if I were to ask the minister a few questions in this regard. Can the hon. gentleman give me an assurance that under the terms of this bill, as it will be administered in conjunction with the provincial act, farmers will not be prevented from selling their wheat to whatever purchasers they wish; that they will not be restricted by quotas; that they will be able to sell through whatever agency they may be disposed to select; and that they will be subject to no restrictions beyond those presently in force?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Those are all valid questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think they should be addressed to me; they should be addressed to the director and personnel of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board. The hon. member is

implying that somehow or other I can intervene as between the producers and the Ontario board. I must tell him I have no such authority, nor am I disposed to be placed in such a position.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Albert Béchard: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Harold Warren Danforth: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. As it is four o'clock, the House will now proceed with private members' business as listed in today's order paper, that is to say, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Mr. O'Connell:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions with hon. members who have Notices of Motions Nos. 12, 14 and 15 standing in their names, and I believe it would be agreeable if those three motions were allowed to stand, at request, and we were to proceed to No. 16.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With the first three holding their places on the Order Paper.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, with the first three holding their places.


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



NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the expediency of entering into discussion with the governments of
March 6, 1970	COMMONS
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the terms under which a National Capital Region Transit Authority could be created and incorporated by federal charter bearing in mind (a) the inadequacy of public transportation facilities in the national capital region (b) the restriction by charter of transit services, both publicly and privately owned, to municipal boundaries (c) the need for longterm planning of an integrated system of rail rapid transit, bus and other means of urban transit (d) the crises developed by the unfair competition provided by public subsidies on behalf of private vehicles (e) the contribution by an efficient, low-cost public transportation system to the balanced economic and social development of the whole national capital region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is put forward for consideration and public debate at this time. I hope hon. members will judge it in relation to two bills which stand in my name on the Order Paper-Bill C-57, to establish a National Capital Region Planning Board and Bill C-112, to establish a National Capital Region Pollution Control Board. These two measures, together with the present one which would create a regional transit authority, are based on certain assumptions. The first is that following a recommendation of the Federal-Provincial Conference of February, 1969, the form of article 16 of the British North America Act will be altered to provide for the inclusion of an area in the province of Quebec and a'n area in the province of Ontario which will correspond roughly to the area defined in the act establishing the national capital region. In other words, the unanimous agreement which was exhibited at the conference where the report dealing with this matter was tabled persuades me that we should consider, when planning the future form of the capital, an area of roughly that size.
The second assumption is that a federal district such as Washington or Brasilia will not be created. In its place will be a development of two municipalities, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, which has been created on the Ontario side by act of the provincial legislature of Ontario and which is now well under way with a good start, and on the Quebec side the communaute Outaouaise which has been created by act of the provincial legislature of Quebec and which is now in process of development.
These two municipalities, I confidently predict, will develop according to the cultural and legal patterns which reflect the duality of Canadian life. On the Ontario side, I fully expect that the civil law as it affects property and other matters will continue to be that which prevails in the province of Ontario,
DEBATES	4495
National Capital Region Transit Authority and that the education system will continue to be the system adopted by that province. On the Quebec side, property and civil law as observed in Quebec will continue to be the basis upon which business is carried out in that part of the national capital region, and the educational system will be essentially that followed in Quebec. I am not one who looks forward to the creation of yet another education jurisdiction in Canada. Ten are more than enough, in my opinion.
If we proceed on the assumption that there are to be regional municipalities on the two sides of the river within two provinces, and if there is to be an extension of the federal government's jurisdiction, it seems to me we must consider the question how certain basic services are to be provided within an orderly framework. Pollution, whether of water, soil or air does not know municipal or provincial boundaries. It seems to me it could have been dealt with,, within a territory as restricted as the national capital region, by an act of Parliament ten years ago or more.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It seems to me that this would be a logical regional basis for transportation planning. I think that we must look to something in the order of a regional authority. I know there are constitutional problems. I also appreciate that there are hon. members in the House who will say to me that these are matters within the jurisdiction of the province, to which I must reply that at some point common sense has to prevail. There is no means by which you can lick the pollution problem in this area by fractioning jurisdiction to the point where you cannot touch this because it is in the municipality's jurisdiction, and you cannot touch that because it is in the province's jurisdiction. The Ottawa River is polluted by everybody, and sooner or later there has to be a co-ordinated attack on that particular problem. I suggest the problem of urban transportation is equally serious.
I had hoped that the concept of some kind of regional authority being established to deal with this specific problem would be the type of instrument that could be created by agreement at a Federal-Provincial Conference, and that the necessary powers would be delegated to that body which would be incorporated, I would hope, by federal charter and concurrent provincial enactment.
I should like to quote from the Ottawa-Hull area transportation study which was conducted in 1965. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec and something like 30 municipalities
March 6, 1970


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.

March 6, 1970

National Capital Region Transit Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House agree that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I will terminate my remarks shortly. I suppose I can say far too much on this subject. I hope that the federal authority, in its discussions of the future pattern of the national capital, will keep in mind that certain functions in respect of pollution control, transportation and planning cannot be left to fall by the wayside. I hope that those who speak for the federal authority at a reasonable point in the discussion will take the initiative to bring about the establishment of some type of functional body which can deal with the problem of public transit. In my opinion, no greater contribution to the economic health of the region, short of perhaps assistance on sewage treatment facilities to eliminate pollution, could be made.

Mr. Speaker, I have proposed that a National Capital Region Transit Authority be created.
I know that my colleagues, namely the hon. members for Hull and Ottawa-Carleton (Messrs. Isabelle and Turner) who also intend to comment on the matter, will approve the proposal I have just made.


Mr. Desmond Code (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity of saying a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). I agree in most part with what the hon. member has put to the House. He mentioned the problem of pollution. It is my understanding that the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are not acting in the manner they should to correct the problem of pollution of the Ottawa River. I hope in the near future these two governments will reconsider their position and get together with the federal government to find a solution.
I am not clear about one point in relation to what the hon. member for Ottawa West said. He talked about a transit system for the city of Ottawa. Two or three weeks ago it was announced in the House that a new bridge would be built across the Ottawa River. I know the hon. member was a member of the Ottawa city council for a number of years and may be more aware of the situation than
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
I am, but I am wondering whether this bridge is being taken into consideration in the plans for the type of transit system we would like to have in Ottawa.
Urban transit has become a serious problem in metropolitan areas of Canada. Everyone who has ever had the ulcer-inducing experience of rush hour traffic in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec or Vancouver is all too familiar with the problem. Statistics are available to outline the congestion. One-half of all Canadians presently live in metropolitan areas with populations of over 100,000, and by 1980 it is estimated that one-third of all Canadians will live in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. Passenger motor vehicle registration has soared by over 70 per cent in the last ten years. In the past our main response to this growing congestion has been the construction and extension of massive freeway systems.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
However, there are definite disadvantages to these systems. The costs are astronomical. Valuable land is consumed by costly expropriation and is thereby removed from municipal tax rolls. Parking space becomes a major problem, especially in the business core. Actual construction costs skyrocket. The elevated portion of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto cost $16 million per mile. Most urban planners now agree that as an efficient means of carrying people within metropolitan areas, the automobile finishes dead last and that reliance on it should be reduced in favour of rapid public transit systems.
Chicago's Congress Street Expressway provides a good example of cost comparisons between freeway and rapid transit systems. This system consists of an eight-lane expressway and a two-track transit line. The tracks occupy one-fifth of the right-of-way and have a capacity of 30,000 seated passengers per hour, while the expressway occupies four-fifths of the right-of-way and accommodates a maximum capacity of 9,000 people per hour. The expressway cost $188.5 million, in comparison with $36 million for the transit line.
In Toronto there is the subway which was constructed not too many years ago. I think it serves very well the city of Toronto. There also are the go-go trains which were recently installed there. When the hon. member for Ottawa West spoke in introducing the bill, I wondered whether he had in mind these rapid transit systems or expressways for the city of Ottawa. As I have shown, there is quite
March 6. 1970

a spread in the cost between the two. I certainly think that when the various governments get together on this matter they should look very carefully into the cost and consider which system would be most beneficial to the area.
Montreal has a fairly new subway. There are also suburban trains which bring passengers in from Rigaud, Vaudreuil, Ste. Anne and other places along the line. Thousands of passengers are carried on those trains. The hon. member for Ottawa West said it is a good idea to have a system such as I have in mind when I speak of expressways and rapid transit lines. I think this system has been of great benefit to the city of Montreal, where you can see thousands of people leaving the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific stations to go to their offices.
I hope that when the regional, provincial and federal governments get together to consider a transit system for Ottawa they will study the matter in great detail in order to come up with the best answer. I certainly agree with my hon. friend that there should be a better transit system in the city of Ottawa.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I should like to support the proposal of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). As we all know, he is a very experienced member in local, regional and federal matters. I believe what he has said about the problems which face this area underline a very ironic situation. Here in the capital area of Canada, which should be an example to the rest of the country, we have a growing and very serious water pollution problem, perhaps one of the worst in Canada, and we also have an amazing air pollution problem with which, as the hon. member pointed out, it is increasingly difficult to cope on the present basis. I think what is required is sort of a single-desk treatment of these various joint problems. To the extent the hon. member has indicated, there should be additional planning and the type of administration he described. We support his proposal.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the motion proposed by my hon. friend from Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
The motion comes in the nick of time because it indicates a disastrous situation in the area, particularly regarding transportation within the national capital.
DEBATES	4499
National Capital Region Transit Authority
In fact, I cannot understand how it is that we are not any better off as regards transportation in the national capital than we were a hundred years ago.
Mr. Speaker, when talking about the national capital, one generally remembers the Greber plan which was tabled in the House in 1951 and was the beginning of a planned development to make of the national capital a model for the whole country.
Several recommendations of the Greber plan have been implemented, but many others have not. For instance, as regards transportation in the Hull area, railroad tracks have been removed. Trains no longer cross the city, except perhaps the one known as "the northern train" which stops at the Hull station. Thus the city of Hull has a station where very few trains stop.
We can now do something in the field of transportation because there are two regional governments, one in Ontario and the other in Quebec. In my opinion, obstacles to agreement have been removed, since the 22 municipalities of Western Quebec are now represented by a regional government, just as are the five municipalities on the Ontario side. Nothing therefore prevents the establishment of a committee to study the problem of public transit in the area of the national capital. The federal government should create it or support it. The national capital should set an example, but, our transportation system is unfortunately a real disaster, because transportation today is a technical problem. When money has to be spent, it should be spent wisely. There has never been any long term planning on the problem of transportation in the national capital region, because the three levels of government never reached an agreement.
It is easy to build bridges but I think that bridges should only serve to unite two road systems; otherwise they become useless. If we build a bridge without paying much attention to the problem of approaches, we may create traffic-jam problems.
The best example of such a lack of logic in 1970 was that we had a highway plan for Hull, which was not accepted on account of disagreements between municipalities. In the end, we had to face a situation where two bridges were built parallel to one another, as is the case in Gatineau Point. So we have traffic jams on both sides.
Can we call that long-term planning? Not at all. If we want to indulge in long-term
March 6, 1970
4500	COMMONS
National Capital Region Transit Authority planning, we must build bridges of course, as the need arises, like around the Island of Hull. Moreover, the Britannia suburbs must be linked to the municipality of Deschenes so as to relieve the traffic congestion. Along the Aylmer Road, even a casual glance will show that we are 100 years behind the times in our area. However, we are part of the national capital area.
When I spoke about long-term planning, I said that no announcement should ever be made regarding the construction of bridges or roads without being sure that the project can be incorporated to a broad highway system.
My hon. friend from Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) mentioned another problem. Longterm planning is a good thing and I hope that we shall go into it. However, short-term planning is also required. When long-term planning works are carried out, the immediate needs for transportation services across the Ottawa river have to be considered at the same time.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
By 1972, many Ottawa residents will go to work in the Hull area, but if some rapid means of transportation are not available, connected with the systems in operation on both sides of the river, we shall face in our national capital the greatest traffic tie up ever seen before in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have proposed a monorail. Of course, there are other means of transportation, but my suggestion is based on technological data. Within the framework of the Canadian Transport Commission, has been established an agency called the Research and Development Unit on Urban Transportation within the Transport Department.
This body is set up in view of developing national methods of approaching the problem of transport in the towns of Canada and eventually solving them.
Canada cannot maintain a sound economy if traffic tie-ups and ill-adjusted public transportation jeopardize the productivity of our towns. Considering that urban transportation absorbs about a fifth of the cost of the whole urban economy, the measures intended to improve their efficiency can not only benefit the national economy but also improve the standards of living of most Canadians.
The Canadian Transport Commission set up this body in 1968. I wonder what part the Transport Commission was able to play in this respect, now that urban transportation is


based on technology. Indeed there are now new means of transport, made available to the public such as the hovercraft, or vacuum tubes where fast trains would be able to be run in air-tight tunnels; there are helicopters and also STOL planes.
A lot of studies have also been conducted on the monorail and the underground. The problem is therefore to use in the best possible way the existing means of transportation, even if this means considering the implementation of traffic rules and the development of a utilitarian urbanization, which in the present trend have already resulted in a comprehensive program.
Just think of those who apply modern technology. I am thinking of the French lineal "Urba-IV" motor, based on the suction principle a type of "hovercraft" in reverse that does extraordinary things. It is the motor of the future seeing it weighs next to nothing.
Since modern technology has been applied, wonderful results have been achieved. The London-Manchester Railway line was electrified, in England; this resulted for British Railways in a 54 per cent increase in the traffic, and 40 per cent in income in the first year of operations, of the new express trains, in 1966.
The great speed of the "Capital", the famous train between Paris and Tolouse, was the direct cause of a 42 per cent increase in the traffic on that line. In Japan, the inauguration of the train "Toka'ido" fooled all the experts by reducing the air traffic between Tokyo and Nagoya to such an extent that the service had to be interrupted.
Just recently, I was reading in Aviation Week and Space Technology that American Airlines was considering the possibility of abandoning its New York-Washington line because, as a result of the competition of express trains such as the "Metroline", it is no longer profitable.
The situation is much the same wherever modern technology has been applied. What is the research division of the Transport Commission looking for? I do not know. Perhaps some day it will bring forth something that has been gestating quietly in the dark. However, it is responsible for not applying modern technology to a rapid transit system between Ottawa and Hull. This is the national capital, yet no one has thought of that. I feel so strongly about this, that I think the chairman of the Transport Commission should resign.
March 6, 1970

When the first national transport conference was held at the Royal York in Toronto, someone said this, and I quote:

The government of Canada Is convinced that urban transportation is essentially a responsibility of provincial governments.

This may be true in theory, but not in practice, because it is up to the central government to update transport technology today, since it has set up a research division within the Canadian Transport Commission.
On the other hand, and this is where I see the prostitution-

Canadian Transport Commission president J. W. Pickersgill presented the semi-official Ottawa attitude in the usual terms:	stressing that urban
transportation was essentially a provincial matter and the federal government, constitutionally, could not interfere. He carefully avoided any commitment to provide federal funds for developing subways and other means of mass transit.
And just to be on the safe side-though he denied this later-Pickersgill cut from his prepared speech the one paragraph the 1,000 delegates wanted to hear.
What he did not say was this: "Since adequate, efficient and economical urban transportation is just as necessary to the national well-being as adequate, efficient and economical extra-urban and international transport, it is the proper concern of the government of Canada".

Since the Canadian Transport Commission has voted funds for the research section, what are we waiting for to do something? Concurrently with the Greber report, transportation studies have been made and should have been published in 1966. Nothing has been done, even if several thousand dollars were spent.
Recently, the Quebec government has decided to undertake a transportation study in Hull. When are we going to write our exams, Mr. Speaker? When will we finally understand that we are not living for structures, but to help our fellow-men?
When bridges are built, the use of cars is encouraged, the air becomes more polluted and people get on each other's nerves even more. Psychiatric problems are created. People are frustrated at having to wait several hours on bridges when traffic is heavy.
I proposed building a monorail. This is a modern and futuristic solution to the problem, and I am not alone to suggest it. Mr. 4501
National Capital Region Transit Authority Fullerton, the present chairman of the National Capital Commission, formerly financial analyst for the newspaper La Presse, in an article dated February 17, 1969, and entitled: "Cities should promote public transit", said the following:
Evidently, it is costly to build new rail systems. However, a monorail system for suspension-trains would permit significant savings on the cost of ground space. The hon. member for Hull, Mr. Gaston Isabelle, incidentally, has just recommended that type of transportation to provide a more convenient link between Ottawa and Hull. It really seems that the monorail is in a fair way to asserting itself as the ultimate solution to the problems of transportation between cities and suburbs.
That man now holds the office of Chairman of the National Capital Commission: we will see what he can do in this area.
In Canada, it is claimed that it is not for the government to consider those things and to allocate funds to further technology so that the transportation means at our disposal are as adequate as those existing in Europe. In this respect, the November 1966 issue of International Science and Technology published an article entitled New Transportation Technology. It says the following, and I quote:
c (4:40 p.m.)

No really new technology is ready to go yet. But a lot of technology will get further development now that the federal funds are becoming available.

That was the situation in the United States in 1966. I suggest we should follow the example of that country with regard to transportation. Intensive research is carried out there. For this, the Americans deserve congratulations.
Today, there must be agreement. Yes, as there are two regional governments, we should, with the help of the National Capital Commission, carry out a study on the creation of a public transportation system, in order to put a stop to the present situation where the people are penalized because governements have not carried out their responsibilities.
I alluded a moment ago to the establishment of two regional administrations. Does the public know when this project was first considered? It was in 1946 and recommendations to that effect were submitted in 1947. The Ottawa Planning Board also promoted this idea in Toronto. This concept was accepted two years ago, Mr. Speaker.
In the province of Quebec, they have just approved the creation of a regional government. It took almost 25 years to finalize such
4502	COMMONS
National Capital Region Transit Authority a plan. If we have to wait for the Canadian Transport Commission to find Easter eggs at this time, in order to make modern technology bring forth something, the eggs will have hatched and we will be right where we are today.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to point out that in France, at the present time, they are putting the finishing touch on the famous Bertin aero tram that is to run at a speed of 350 kilometres per hour and will be used between Paris and Orleans. If the Canadian Transport Commission goes on beating about the bush, I shall recommend to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to make an airbus available to me so that I might go over there and see with my own eyes what is going on. I do not know if they are aware of it, but I was told they were looking into the same problems as we are. For years now the linear engine URBA-IV has been under consideration in Paris and Lyon. Here studies are starting all over again.
The Canadian Transport Commission, instead of suggesting the construction of a subway, ignores the matter completely, as evidenced at the first national conference on transportation, held at the Royal York Hotel just as if we were still in 1929. I think that our organizations lack responsible leaders. It is said that often parliament moves slowly due to its age-long tradition, perhaps, and its obsolete customs. I agree on that, but it is essential that the responsible authorities be dynamic and take into account modem technology in connection-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Does the House agree to allow the honorable member to carry on with his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I express the wish that men of good will get together and get to work in the best interests of the people of the national capital area. In fact, the Greber report provided for a comprehensive plan integrating all the important services. As the transportation question is one which has nothing to do either with language, religion, traditions, nobody could claim that the identity of Quebec or Ontario must be preserved. When you drive a car, it has not always been made in your hometown. In fact, transportation is an international activity that should be discussed seriously, in order

DEBATES	March 6, 1970
to find solutions which only modern technology can provide. The Canadian Transport Commission shows no concern for modern technology. On the other hand, they took the wrong track with this famous turbo-train which will never work despite the huge amount of money being spent on it.
\ English]


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlefon):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) who speaks, as everybody knows, with special authority on this matter. This derives from his long experience in municipal affairs in Ottawa, and also from his special knowledge as a former member of the Ottawa Transport Commission.
I also wish to speak in support of this motion, as have my friends, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code), the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). In addressing myself to this problem, hon. members will understand it is not just a local problem, it is a national problem, and that we are confronted in this country finally and fortunately with an important change in public attitude.
For many, many years public transit has been regarded as a second best. But now people are beginning to see that public transit is a necessity; and more than that, it is a more desirable alternative than the proliferation of travel by motor car. What people are finally seeing is what the hon. member for Ottawa West referred to as the hidden cost of motor car travel. This has always been hidden, and it has to be balanced against the exposed cost of public transit, which is out in the open. Public transit has suffered; the people have suffered. But I hope we have at last come to the time when the people generally share the views expressed here, that rational choices have to be made in order to re-organize the total transportation system, not only of this area but of every metropolitan area in Canada.
The costs, which are now apparent, of the proliferation of motor car travel include clogged highways, congestion, the turning of our downtown areas virtually into parking lots, pollution, accidents and the ever-increas-in expense necessary to meet the requirements of private motor car travel. One authority who participated in the conference to which the hon. member for Hull referred,
March 6, 1970

the first Canadian Urban Transportation Conference, Dr. Joseph Kates, referred to this problem as follows:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We have private car oriented developments and we are becoming increasingly dependent on the private car. This marvellous flexible machine, the dream of everyone who hasn't one, the luxury conveyance with its image of freedom, flexibility and status is also becoming the Frankenstein monster who frequently dominates our life and our cities and forces us to pay a very, very high price for its convenience. What is this price we pay?
I do not wish to expand on that price, but people are becoming aware of what it is. The controversy over the Spadina development in Toronto, which is matched in Ottawa by the controversy over a proposal to run a freeway through the centre of the city, indicates to all sections of our population the price we pay in trying to accommodate the ever-increasing number of private cars. We see this in many ways.
I quote further the words of Dr. Kates, who speaks about the situation in metropolitan Toronto and whose remarks on the total cost of all private car travel might be of interest to the House:
The utilization of our huge investment in private cars is unbelievably low. The car fleet in metropolitan Toronto alone represents an investment of several billions of dollars, the garages, carports and parking lots required to store these cars represent a further investment of several billions of dollars, the roads, bridges and tunnels required for these cars represent a further several billions of dollars and the costs of operating, maintaining and repairing this huge fleet amount to perhaps another $500 million annually.
Yet this huge investment is used on the average perhaps one to two hours a day, or less than 10 per cent, representing an enormous wasteful use of expensive resources which could be used in so many other ways to make us stronger and richer. When this low utilization of the car is multiplied by the low utilization of its seats we find that the huge investment has a utilization of less than 2 per cent.
While as individuals we are frequently willing to buy expensive cars, often a little beyond our means, as a society we find ourselves financially in serious trouble in meeting the requirements of these cars in terms of roads, bridges and tunnels, and parking facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that we can legislate the private car out of existence. This is clearly impossible in a free society. As the hon. member for Ottawa West pointed out, the obvious solution is to provide a transit system wherein people will have an opportunity to express a reasonable preference between public transit and the use of their private automobiles. There is experience to 21774-8J
DEBATES	4503
National Capital Region Transit Authority show that where these reasonable alternatives are provided, people will prefer public transit. For example, it is estimated that 85 per cent of the commuter traffic within range of the new GO transit system outside Toronto use that transit system.
Despite the difficulties of our local transit commission in Ottawa it has been shown that by improving the services and providing better facilities, greater utilization occurs. In another paper presented to this conference, Dr. Kates had this to say:
In Canada, transit organizations have also made important progress. The Ottawa Transit Commission, for example, has introduced new bus shelters, extended routes, provided more frequent service and introduced better vehicles. The result is a significant increase in the number of passengers.
The hon. member for Ottawa West referred to the fact that this significant increase occurred over a period of four or five years. Mr. Speaker, the problem we face in this area is clearly one of attacking transit on an areawide basis; it cannot be attacked on the basis of solving it within local municipal boundaries. It is not an easy problem to solve; it requires study, co-operation and experimentation. Nor can it be solved by trying to impose arbitrary penalties on one section of the population as opposed to another. It will not be solved for example, by imposing penalties on public servants in respect of their parking privileges when there are no public transit facilities from the suburbs to bring people to work. The basic problem in my constituency on the outskirts of Ottawa, which includes Nepean township, is that there are no public transit facilities. The Ottawa Transit Commission comes to the fringe of the area at Bay-shore and Parkwood Hills but the rest of this important suburban development, which has upwards of 40,000 people, is not served by any public transit at all.


Mr. Winch:: Are you going to talk this motion out?


Duncan Gordon Blair: I always appreciate the views of my hon. friend. The problems faced by people in this area are substantial. Again I quote the words of Dr. Kates, who said:
The car oriented city provides less and less ability for those not able to afford a car or not able to drive, the poor, the young, the aged and the infirm. While the private car enables car owning families to move far from public transportation, providing mobility to the head of the family and possibly his wife it isolates even in such families, the children, the old, the infirm in the same house-
March 6, 1970

National Capital Region Transit Authority
hold and forces car driving adults for many precious hours into becoming chauffeurs for the rest of the family, relatives and friends.
In my experience, there is no single problem as great for the people in the suburbs of Ottawa as the fact that they are isolated from public transit.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Don't you talk it out; let him talk it out, he is the Ottawa member.


Duncan Gordon Blair: There are very hopeful signs, Mr. Speaker, that action will be taken. The new regional municipality of Ottawa-Carle-ton has an important committee headed by the mayor of Ottawa, the purpose of which is to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 9, 1970