1977-03-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), on the basis of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That the House of Commons supports an initiative of the government to provide aid to Rumania in its hour of need and in particular to airlift foodstuffs including milk powder to that stricken country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


PROPOSAL TO SEND AID TO VICTIMS OF EARTHQUAKE IN RUMANIA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar motion to the last. Perhaps it will get a better reception. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
That this House express its deepest sympathy for the people of Rumania who have suffered from a catastrophic earthquake and request the Canadian government to join with other countries in extending relief to the victims.
I propose that it not be debated at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, part of which stems from my just completed visit to Tokyo where I had the opportunity to attend an extensive series of meetings with government officials, including members from both Houses of the Japanese Diet, and in particular the general director of the Japanese Small and Medium Enterprises Agency.
In view of the fact that the Japanese small business community is the leader among industrialized nations, primarily because of the aggressiveness of its government and its policies, while Canada's small firms sector continues to encounter a multitude of difficulties resulting in a record number of bankruptcies, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of State responsible for small business be instructed to introduce a small business act which would include the reduction of the existing bureaucratic activity and substitute further incentives to small business.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SUGGESTED COMPILATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS COLLECTED AND SPENT IN QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the effervescence resulting from the new political situation created on November 15 last, and the necessity to make known all the possible consequences which might stem
80010-28V2

March 7, 1977
Presence in Gallery
from setting up an independent state in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the federal government draw up a clear list of all the revenues it levies now within the borders of the province of Quebec, as well as all the expenses it incurs within the same borders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of this motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the apparent conflict between the Cast shipping group, the largest volume ocean carrier at the port of Montreal, and that port's Maritime Employers Association, is having profound repercussions upon the port of Montreal and other east coast ports, especially Halifax, to which Cast has indicated it may move, and in order to clear up the confusion, and uncertainty, and lessen the disruptive impact which this conflict is having upon the shipping community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That the subject of the Cast-MEA dispute at the Port of Montreal be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and that officials of Cast and the ME As be called as witnesses by the committee in order to alleviate the crisis at the port of Montreal and reduce the uncertainty which exists in other Atlantic Canada ports.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF YOUTH DELEGATION FROM THE UKRAINE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the oral question period 1 know all hon. members would wish to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of an important and distinguished delegation from, primarily, the Ukraine. It is a youth delegation led by a number of members of the soviet of the city of Kiev and, particularly, by one member of the
[Mr. Matte.)
Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr. Mikhail Kutsbeer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour might I put a question to the Prime Minister? Can the Prime Minister advise us whether the Canadian Labour Congress has in fact agreed to return its representatives to the Canada Labour Relations Council and the Economic Council, and whether the CLC has agreed to the labour minister's so-called multipartite national forum?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: On the first point, I am not aware of anything which has been said by the CLC. On the second point, 1 would remind the hon. members that the CLC itself asked for a tripartite set-up. They asked for this some time last summer in several meetings with myself and members of the cabinet. We have agreed to proceed along these lines if we can put a project together. So there is an arrangement in theory between us to have a tripartite, and perhaps eventually multipartite, group meet, but at this stage 1 think it is premature to say that the details have been fixed.


POSSIBILITY OF PROVINCES AGREEING TO MULTIPARTITE FORUM TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC QUESTIONS
John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether, at the recent meeting between the government and the provincial labour ministers, the government was able to obtain provincial agreement to the concept put forward by the Minister of Labour of a multipartite national forum; and has the government obtained any commitments from the provinces to meet jointly with the federal government and the CLC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not actually speak of a tripartite national forum. I indicated that there was an effort under way to have a meeting between representatives of the business community, representatives of the unions and of the federal government. This has been discusssed with both labour and management. The details have not been arrived at, and for that reason 1 think it is a bit premature to talk about any precise multilateral forum yet.
March 7, 1977


POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF MULTIPARTITE FORUM IN FAVOUR OF TRIPARTITE FORUM TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC QUESTIONS
John Allen Fraser: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour definitely stated in October that the policy of the government was the establishment of a multipartite national forum, the government has now abandoned that position and is prepared to settle for what the CLC has always insisted upon, and that is a tripartite forum, or consultative or discussion group, based on representatives from government, industry and labour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, we have not abandoned that, but we are now considering the necessity perhaps of having, as a preliminary step, meetings together with business and labour. It is my understanding that business and labour have been meeting, and perhaps will meet again, together. We have now suggested that at one such meeting the federal government be present to discuss, among other things, the larger multipartite forum.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PLANS FOR ENDING WAGE AND PRICE CONTROL-ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS TO TRIPARTITE FORUM FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour may I address my question to the Prime Minister. As the Minister of Labour has been rebuffed in his first overture to Mr. Morris because he was unable to meet their idea for decontrol, is the government now ready with proposals for the CLC with a definite date for ending wage and price controls, especially the knotty problem of wage decontrol within the public and private sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what particular rebuff the hon. member's question relates.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: There are so many of them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly. I do know that the last meeting we had with the CLC, which was toward the end of January, it was stated publicly by Mr. Morris at the end of the meeting that it was agreed we had made progress in discussing plans for decontrol and the post-control period.


William Gordon Ritchie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has a recent meeting with business leaders, did he broach the idea of a tripartite discussion with them, and were those leaders receptive to the idea when he met with them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not empowered to speak for them, of course, but so far as I can assess their attitude and the government is prepared to act, it was that they were
Oral Questions
receptive both to tripartite and eventually to the possibility of a multipartite meeting.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Considering that we now have the highest number of unemployed in Canadian history, would the minister inform the House why he has permitted officials within his department to operate a quota system, the purpose of which is to disentitle claimants to unemployment insurance benefits to which they ought to be entitled? The target being described by one of his senior officials in the province of Ontario is "in the ballpark neighbourhood of 40 per cent."


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would say there is no quota system as such. What has happened-


John Edward Broadbent: As such?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Do you wish me to finish or would you like to do your "sup" first?
Mr. Speaker, what we have under the benefit control system is cross-indexing so that when a study or testing is done there is some indication in the cards that there is some discrepancy or problem so the percentages appear higher than they should. 1 am sorry about that because the large majority of people drawing unemployment insurance are not cheaters. The interviewers know this and those who do not know it are instructed that is the case. The higher percentages come about as a result of the cross-indexing system and in that category they are higher than they would be for the over-all average of all claimants.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's answer that he does not deny the existence of some kind of quota system, whether or not he adds the words "as such". I should like him to clarify what he has just said to the House. Is there an informal or formal system at this point, with unemployment at least at the 900,000 level according to official figures? Do his officials have instructions to get out and disentitle up to 40 per cent of claimants for benefits under unemployment insurance legislation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. My people in the department are instructed to get out and disentitle those who are not entitled to benefits under the program. The hon. member asked what I meant by "quota as such". It turned out that those figures roughly paralleled that percentage but there was not a quota. That is what I meant.

March 7, 1977
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE AUTOMATIC DISENTITLEMENT OF ENGLISH OR FRENCH-SPEAKING CLAIMANT NOT ACCOMPANIED BY INTERPRETER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. This seems to be flatly denied by one of the minister's officials who implied it was an informal quota system. Be that as it may, I should like to ask the minister to confirm the report that a memo has been circulated in the Montreal area within his department which instructs officials when interviewing an English-speaking person who applies in the Montreal area which is predominantly French-speaking, say, in the regional office, to disentitle that person automatically if he does not have an interpreter or visa-versa, in areas of the country that are predominantly English-speaking are his officials instructed to disentitle automatically a person who is French-speaking unless that person has an interpreter?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I read the allegations contained in the Olivia Ward story. I noticed that she did not bother to make known the fact that my officials in Belleville were courteous enough to spend three weeks helping her research her story. I think when the regional office reports she has misquoted them throughout the article 1 would want to check some of the details before commenting further.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS COLLECTED AND SPENT IN QUEBEC
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the difficulties we have in getting the exact figures concerning the amounts collected and spent by the federal government in Quebec, and as all kinds of fanciful figures may be issued in this regard, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he soon intends to give the public exact information in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that this would be extremely difficult to establish, even theoretically, and still more difficult in practice, but I take note of the hon. member's proposition and will consider it.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister mean by his answer that he considers the defence of federalism as something purely theoretical?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Mr. Cullen.]


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-ALLEGED LACK OF CO-OPERATION IN INVESTIGATION OF AGENTS- FEES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On Friday evening a CBC radio report stated that Argentine authorities claim they have received no co-operation from Canada in their investigation of agents' fees in the sale of a CANDU reactor, and in particular they have received no reply to two letters sent to the Canadian government, one in December and one in January, seeking assistance. Will the Prime Minister explain this lack of co-operation on the part of his government to these requests from Argentine officials and will he say when the letters were received and when they will be answered?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of these requests, but I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources here who is willing to volunteer some answers. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could recognize the minister.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: If I may, I should like to say to the hon. lady that I am not aware of any problem so far as the Argentinians are concerned. Indeed, I think the Argentinians have been well pleased with the degree of co-operation between Canada and Argentina. As the hon. lady may know, the Argentinians, the Canadians and Italimpianti signed the renegotiated agreement a matter of two weeks ago.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not seem to hear my specific question I would like to ask him what the government has done with regard to the letters, one in December and one in January, which have been directed to the Canadian government seeking assistance and to which, they say, they have received no reply. Would the minister say why there has been no reply and, at the same time, why during the renegotiation of the contract in Argentina this matter of agents' fees was not discussed by the chairman of AECL with the Argentine officials?


Alastair William Gillespie: I will be very pleased to check with officials of AECL to determine whether or not they received any letters and what actions they have taken with respect to those letters. In answer to the last part of the question, whether there had been any discussion between the chairman of AECL and officials with respect to agents' fees, yes, there was. Indeed, the chairman on my instructions asked the Argentinians if they could assist him in finding out who the agent was.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of the fact that some three months have elapsed since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in the House on December 2 that he was as anxious as anyone to get to the bottom of this whole business, will the minister now explain why he is unaware of the fact
March 7, 1977

that two letters have been sent by the Argentine officials to the government of Canada to which there has been no reply?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It's a big bottom.


SALE BY ARGENTINA TO PERU OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO CANADIAN TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well because, as he knows, those letters would have to go through the government of Canada and not AECL. According to press reports on the weekend emanating from Buenos Aires and in the New York Times, Argentina apparently is negotiating, or has actually concluded, a sale of nuclear facilities and technology to Peru. Can the minister tell us whether or not he has been assured that either no Canadian technology is included in this sale or, if it is, that there will be no abuse of that technology by any prospective purchaser of it from Argentina?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have been assured that there is no Canadian technology in the sale so far as is known to officials of AECL with whom I have discussed this question an hour or so ago. I can also assure the hon. member that if there were any Canadian technology in what is a research reactor designed, so far as I know, entirely by the Argentinians from their own expertise, the export of that reactor would then be subject to Canadian safeguards.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that this is a sale from the Argentinian government and not from AECL and, indeed, may not have anything to do with AECL, I wonder if the minister has caused any inquiries to be made through the Argentinian government as to the facts of the case, bearing in mind that the Indian bomb was developed from a Canadian research reactor.


Alastair William Gillespie: I thought I made it very clear a few moments ago that I had talked to senior officials of AECL to try to find out what it was the Argentinians wanted to export to the Peruvians, and I expect to get a detailed answer in a matter of days. Unfortunately, the officials did not have all the facts before them, but to their knowledge there was no Canadian technology involved in the transaction.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the ruling of the Minister of Agriculture and the cabinet against
Oral Questions
the Canadian farmer and in favour of multinational pesticide companies with regard to the importation of pesticides, is the Minister of Agriculture going to have Mrs. Plumptre head up the toothless watchdog committee which is supposed to monitor the price of pesticides in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not agree at all with the hon. member's preamble. He knows full well, as practically everyone in the nation knows, that this Minister of Agriculture's concern is for our total society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: To make sure I have a healthy agricultural industry, 1 have to have a healthy pesticide industry to go along with it. Canada is the only country in the world which allows its farmers to do what they are doing. The monitoring system we will be setting up is something we have never had for that industry. I do not think pesticides can be compared with anything our farmers buy in Canada. We are developing a very fair system, and the hon. member knows that. Out of some 300,000 farmers in Canada approximately 2,000 use this system, which has been made available to them through the goodness of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs 1 would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the cabinet has capitulated to big business- the multinationals-and used gimmickry to give them embargo protection for imports of pesticides in the guise of safety, a ruling against Canadian farmers, will the minister urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the cabinet to enforce strictly the Labelling Act to see that all produce brought into Canada has bilingual labels no matter what form of package it is in?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this government has done much to assist our farmers, and our farmers have more programs available to them than farmers across the border in the United States, with whom they have to compete. If the hon. member thinks I have capitulated to the pesticide industry, he should talk to people in that industry to see what they think about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, to whom 1 have given notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 7, 1977
Oral Questions


Hugh Alan Anderson: In a newspaper article of January 14, 1976, a Dr. R. Somerville stated in the Comox District Free Press that 66 per cent of the marine accidents on the east coast are caused by mechanical failure. He further stated that in many cases government inspectors-


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


Hugh Alan Anderson: He stated that they are wined and dined, and I wonder if the minister would answer these very serious allegations about practices which take place on the east coast of Canada? Has the minister conducted an investigation, and can he inform the House of the results of that investigation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some general accusations concerning the conduct of inspection officers, but we have not been able to trace actual reports filed in this connection. I think it is very important that people who have any information let us have it so that we can proceed in an orderly manner. I think it is very unfortunate that accusations are made in this general way and in such a way as to bring discredit upon people who work in the inspection service without giving them a chance to clear themselves or to defend themselves.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the forecast made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance last week about the date of the budget, I wonder if the minister could now tell me whether a date such as April 18 might be a fair guess as to the date of the budget.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm to the hon. gentleman my intention to make a budgetary statement on the evening of Thursday, March 31.


IMMIGRATION
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I understand that the immigration bill is expected to come forward for second reading shortly. In view of the fact that the bill would enable regulations to be made in respect of a large number of important matters, including the imposition upon any person or class of persons-including, I assume, Canadian citizens-of the requirement of obtaining from an immigration official a report or of giving a report

before leaving Canada, a provision for which, incidentally, we have criticized the U.S.S.R., and in view of other important matters covered by the regulations, will the minister give to this House a statement as to what is to be contained in the regulations before second reading?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I answered a question asked by the hon. member for Provencher and said that the thrust and content of the regulations would be introduced at the committee stage and that 1 would be as forthcoming as I could at that time.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that it is a little irresponsible to ask parliament to approve in principle such sensitive legislation as the immigration legislation when a large part of the real provisions are left in blank, to be filled in by regulations? Do we not have the right to know what is in the legislation before we are asked to approve it in principle?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think any careful reading of the bill will indicate that it is an excellent bill. It is a good bill both for Canada and for immigrants, and the contents of the regulations in so far as I know them at the time-not the regulations themselves-will be made available at the committee stage.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and it relates to previous questions asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby with respect to the change of procedure or regulations set out to benefit control officers. Can the minister indicate when these regulations were substantially changed and what kind of advice or publication was made available with respect to those who were in receipt of, or beneficiaries of, unemployment insurance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think we have said on more than one occasion in the House that when the major amendments to this bill were passed in 1971, our prime concern was to get the benefits to the people who were thereby entitled. Subsequent to that, having achieved a measure of success in that area, we then moved to the benefit control phase, and 1 think nothing is different from what we have in fact been doing since the major changes in the act in 1971.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would not want to mislead the House in suggesting there have not been significant changes with respect to benefit control procedures over the last year, inasmuch as reports have now been made with respect to the reduction in the total
March 7, 1977

amount of unemployment insurance paid last year, even though the number of unemployed was actually greater. I wonder if the minister can indicate when these changes were made and what steps were taken to notify people of the change in enforcement procedures with respect to benefit control, which has led to a great deal of personal difficulty and hardship for people, particularly for people in high unemployment areas.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the only people who are suffering hardship are those who are actually cheating, and benefit control officers are going after individuals who have jobs and who are at the same time drawing unemployment insurance and for other reasons, so on that point if someone is suffering hardship, that cannot be avoided. Frankly, it is a self-inflicted wound.
With respect to tightening the control measures, I have indicated that we follow the first procedure, send cheques to those entitled; we then set about improving the efficiency of our benefit control operation, and I think that has been successful.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister seems unwilling to indicate the exact date when these changes were made. Equally important is the issue of notification to individuals directly involved. Since some unemployment insurance officers have indicated difficulty in understanding the complexities and nuances of the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations, and since many recipients, particularly in high unemployment areas, as unskilled and partially literate, can the minister say what steps are taken to let people know how they should operate to avoid the possibility of disqualifying themselves even though they are legitimately unemployed, as the minister well knows may be the case?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have improved our interview system and if, after the interview, the individual concerned is not satisfied with the information, or if information is not forthcoming, the case is transferred to a benefit control officer. Surely, it is simple to understand that you should not be working while drawing unemployment insurance.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister use his good offices to facilitate the sending of unleavened bread to the Soviet Union so that Soviet citizens who are of the Jewish faith may celebrate the Passover?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 
TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is further to inquiries I made several days ago about the extent of revenues offshore shipping companies receive from Canadian government charters, such as CN charters. Is the minister now in a position to indicate the volume or extent of such charter business which is directed to offshore companies, to the detriment of Canadian taxation revenues? If so, will he indicate whether he is concerned enough about the situation to consider a policy change in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the full details of revenues going to offshore companies would be better supplied in an answer to an order paper question. It has been done before. I could supply the detailed information to the hon. member. His earlier remarks had to do with an allegation; it sounded as if the hon. member weie referring to some impropriety. 1 have not been able to find any trace of that at this point. I have not received from the hon. member the information he said he had, information which he thought might be useful.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer. I remind the minister that I sent him some documentation. I have also sent some to the tax avoidance section of the Department of National Revenue. I should like the minister, in his capacity as Minister of Transport, to give some indication that he thinks it is in the national interest to give preference to domestic Canadian companies in the awarding of shipping charters, and say if he intends to take steps in this regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certainly, within reason, it is desirable to give preference to Canadian vessels. With respect to the vessel to which the hon. member referred earlier, the MV Marine Cruiser, I am told that a search for appropriate vessels was made and this one was found to be available for the purpose.

March 7, 1977
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what form of support the federal government decided to extend to the government and the people of Rumania, following the tragedy which occurred in this country?

While I am on my feet may I ask the Prime Minister if he has received the latest report from Dr. Gallup, on which all his colleagues wish to congratulate him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That was a planted comment.
[ Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I only know that the Canadian government offered $100,000 to the Canadian Red Cross in a first effort to help the Rumanians who experienced this terrible tragedy. Following the motion which has been put forward today, and which has been supported by the hon. member, I think the government will take this matter into further consideration.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture, a question connected with pesticides? In view of the minister's statement that pesticides are essential for maintaining the high level and quality of Canadian food production and since many prairie farmers are already committed to the importation of expensive pesticides, as has been their good farming practice for many years, and this in the face of the declining price of grain, what advice has the minister to offer those prairie farmers as they face this additional financial burden brought about by the government's change in policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: We have said that the pesticide industry is most important for the health of Canadian agriculture, and 99.6 per cent of the prairie farmers buy a Canadian-produced and distributed product. Only a small proportion, less than one per cent, bring it into western Canada. Actually, most of that material entering Canada is brought into the province of Ontario, but there is a group in southern Manitoba also bringing it in. They are mostly corn growers. I admire them and admire the price they receive for their corn, because it is about 70 cents a bushel above the price they were getting in

the interest of Canada under a special agreement; so they are not as badly off as the hon. member makes out. We have received a request in connection with this question, because farmers go south of the border to buy pesticides. Approximately 100 band together, go to the United States and put a down payment on a bulk order. This question is being considered because they neglected to apply for a permit to bring it in before we ceased that operation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister quite replied to my question. My question was, what advice has he to offer to farmers already heavily committed to purchasing pesticides from south of the border, as has been their custom according to good agricultural practice in the past, a practice encouraged by government policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure 1 understand what the hon. member means when he talks about the government having encouraged farmers in the past. We encouraged them to use pesticides, but to use them properly, according to Canadian environmental rules. If the hon. member is talking about that, yes, we encouraged them to do that. We encouraged them to buy Canadian products as much as possible, and support Canadian industry as much as possible. I just ask farmers to be a little consistent in their demands. Do they want me to close the border for one thing, but not another? The beef producer is demanding it, but when it comes to pesticides they say that we are in danger of destroying the agricultural industry in Canada.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I ask if the letter tabled in the right hon. gentleman's name by the Secretary of State on Friday, directing the CRTC to look into the CBC, sets out all the directions and/or conditions of that inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no direction before the CRTC other than that particular letter. So, to the extent that that is what the hon. member wants to know, that is my answer.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Communications said in this Flouse several times that the second phase of the telecommunications legislation will come before the House, something she last repeated, I think, during the ministers' conference in Alberta, can the Prime Minister say if that stage of legislation is ready to come before the House, in order that no pressure, direct or implied which may be contained in that legislation, will affect the deliberations of the CRTC in its inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how that legislation could constitute pressure. But if it worries the hon. member, I
March 7, 1977

will look into the matter, and if it should constitute pressure, perhaps we will delay the introduction of the legislation.


TRANSPORT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport arises from difficulties being experienced in the port of Montreal. Can the minister advise the House if he or any officials of MOT have had discussions with representatives of Cast Canadian National, the MEA, or the harbours board with respect to this dispute, particularly as it relates to recent press allegations that it may be a pressure move to force the government to act with respect to part of its guarantee concerning loans to MEA which are now close to $17 million?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such discussions. Certainly, none of them has reached my ears or eyes at this point, but I can check into the matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question consists partly of a representation and partly of a question. Since the minister no doubt recognizes that you do not benefit one part of the country by hurting another and knows of the difficulties which will arise if Cast were to pull completely out of Montreal-although we would love to have them in Halifax-can the minister assure us that the government does not intend at this time to consider writing off the $17 million debt incurred largely for the retirement of ILA members in the river ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter has not come to the consideration of the government, so I can hardly give a reply to the question as to what that consideration will be.


PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS FOR GRAIN-INQUIRY WHETHER CARS WILL BE USED ALL YEAR
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the minister's news release dated February 18 with regard to the purchase of an additional 2,000 hopper cars made up of 824 aluminum cars and 1176 steel, CP Rail taking all the steel cars, in view of his statement contained in the release that CP Rail has agreed to use the steel cars on secondary lines and bearing in mind that CP Rail during the last year withdrew its service of hopper cars on secondary lines during the summer, will the minister advise whether the undertaking is to make use of hopper cars on a year-round basis or only in the winter months?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the hopper cars will be used on a regular basis. Obviously, there may be some lines where there will be differences in service between winter and summer, but the general rule is that they will be used all the time. The basic position will be that the cars will be loaded to the weight which will avoid any danger of damage to the lines. The problem CPR ran into was over loading of cars. They have now introduced some new techniques which tend to insure against that happening. It was only on that understanding that we were willing to go ahead and order additional cars of that weight for CP.


REASON CANADIAN PACIFIC CHOSE STEEL HOPPER CARS
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the aluminium cars are lighter than the steel cars and more suitable for branch or secondary lines, can the minister advise if the only basis that CP Rail chose the steel cars was that they prefer one standardized car and was the calling of tenders based on that premise?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 was informed that the operational desirability of one type of car was the reason behind CP's wish to go with the 100 ton car. As the hon. member says, the 70 ton car is obviously lighter. However, the heavier car can be loaded in such a way as to produce a weight equivalence.


FISHERIES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: March 7, 1977
Oral Questions
received last week, those plants which had difficulty at the beginning of the year have reopened.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did the minister receive three suggested changes to the fisheries management scheme from the Newfoundland fisheries minister? If so, is he accepting any of those suggested changes?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have received suggestions from many quarters including, I am sure, that one. These have all been taken into account with regard to possible changes. The fact is we knew from the very beginning that because of the low quotas of redfish, the sidetrawlers would undergo considerable difficulty. We offered incentives which would allow them to fish in other areas where there are other species.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Have there been any complaints from any member of the Canadian Wheat Board or any member of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board about the minister's announcement of initial prices without informing either the Canadian Wheat Board or the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, although I could check whether anything has appeared in my office. The information on initial prices, of course, is announced effectively as soon as the order in council for that purpose has been approved or as immediately thereafter as possible.


POSSIBILITY DEPARTMENT DECENTRALIZED WITH REGIONAL OFFICE IN SYDNEY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is with reference to the government's stated program of decentralization of government services. Is the minister, or any other minister of the government, going to announce that his department will be divided into five regions and that the regional offices for the Atlantic provinces will be located at Sydney, thereby providing a better service for the region and much needed employment on Cape Breton Island?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of regional decentralization is under the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Commerce. There have been discussions with my department as to what can be done to try to alleviate unemployment in some areas by trying to decentralize some of our offices which can be decentralized while still providing efficient service to our citizens. I am not in a position to make a specific announcement with regard to a particular situation, but I might tell the hon. member that discussions have taken place between myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister. May I direct one short supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to cast any further light on this and state that if there is a decentralization, Sydney will be included? If so, will an announcement be made shortly or will it be made shortly before the next election?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement very quickly. I am pleased to see that the hon. member supports this program. I hope he will talk to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who over the weekend criticized this policy very severely.


Walter David Baker: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: 
KITIMAT PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ROUTE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, when the minister announced that hearings would take place about April, they were for the seaward side. They concerned a terminal. In view of the fact it is proposed the pipeline will run
March 7, 1977

east from Kitimat, what kind of public hearing is the government proposing with regard to that area because there are three native land claims affecting that proposed pipeline? We have had no indication that there will be public hearings. Can the minister now advise whether he proposes public hearings both on the seaward side and landward side other than, of course, the NEB hearings?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear that the public
hearings would be dealing with the seaward side of the project. As for the land part of the pipeline, that is obviously going to come up when the Energy Board studies this proposal. 1 assume a public hearing will take place then.


THE BUDGET
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Until today it was generally felt that the budget would be introduced in April, after the Easter holidays. Now it has been decided to call it on March 31. Does that indicate the government is now considering its option of having a general election under the present system rather than under the new legislation which comes into effect on June 11 and which will add another 20 seats to the House, mainly in western Canada where the Liberal party is virtually non-existent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I didn't know I was that smart, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton on a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has left the House to pick up his copy of the Globe and Mail. I gather it will be read by him with the same degree of accuracy as the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in Toronto earlier on the weekend. I hope it will be more accurate. A very serious question was asked in the House by my hon. friend concerning the decentralization of government installations in Canada. On several occasions in the past when questions have been asked on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition, by myself and by members on both
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
sides of the chamber, there have occurred exchanges in which my name has been used in a context implying that I am opposed to the principle of decentralization either directly-as was the case today-or by implications in terms of my seat being beside that of the Leader of the Opposition, or as being House leader of this party.
If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would read the whole of the report in the Globe and Mail-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What page?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The same page as that on which the ridiculous speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in Toronto is reported. The minister succeeded in making an ass of himself then, and he is making another ass of himself today. In that press report in the Globe and Mail the following statement appears:
The Progressive Conservative party has long advocated decentralization and still does on a rational, planned, open basis. Canadians everywhere are entitled to expect decentralization with clear goals, realistic criteria and a definite time-frame. We should not have to poke and prod at an amphorous mass to obtain small bits of information. There should be a white paper which can stand on its merits and be revised in the light of intelligent criticism. Plans which affect the lives of thousands of people and the economic health of communities from coast to coast should not be swathed in secrecy.
I put the position plainly. It is the position which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated prior to Christmas he would take-that he would shortly make a statement setting out the position with regard to decentralization. Mr. Speaker, the government suffers from a congenital problem. It finds it impossible to do anything in an open and plain manner. I know of no government in modern times which can take a principle, a reasonable principle like decentralization, and so twist it and warp it as to make it unrecognizable.
I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) a question with regard to a specific department. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) also directed a specific question on this subject. What I tried to say in the press release, and what the Globe and Mail correctly reported me as saying, was that we have had enough of the government trying to capitalize on movements. These decisions affect the receiving municipalities. They affect public servants, for example, husbands and wives who may be employed in different departments of government-one of them is suddenly uprooted and moved away. These are important considerations. What the leader of my party, what the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and others have asked for is disclosure by the government, in the House of Commons, of what it has in mind-I have suggested a white paper-so that we could discuss the matter and put forward suggestions. In this way the public service unions will know what is happening, people entering the public service will know what is happening, and public servants generally will know what is likely to take place.
The reason for issuing my statement was, really, justified anger at answers given to questions 1,138 and 1,139 on the

March 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Walter Baker
order paper. These answers, given the most charitable interpretation, must be read as meaning all these decisions are internal and that no consultation will take place, that there will be no white paper and no discussion of this important issue of decentralization. I believe I have made my position clear and I hope the minister will retract his statement, one which is unworthy of him, even in good fun.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this question of privilege. First, I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member supports the policy. The problem I have is this: it is difficult for me to understand how a man can support a policy and at the same time say on every occasion that the policy is no good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I never said that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: However, I am glad to know the hon. member supports the policy. I accept his word for that. But I want to tell him this: if we apply a policy of decentralizing government bureaucrats, moving them out of Ottawa, I cannot make it effective without moving any people. The hon. member has asked for a white paper. I have agreed to his request. He keeps repeating there is no over-all policy. 1 want to listen to the opposition. I want to listen to the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). But I want to give them a total package. There are decisions which will help some areas of Canada, perhaps the part which the hon. member represents; but I cannot bring everything up to date because I want to present a total package. I hope the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will continue to support the policy. I hope he will get it into his mind, though, that I cannot decentralize 4,000 or 5,000 employees and move them away from Ottawa without displacing anybody. I hope to be able to come here with a definite statement within a few weeks but I trust that whenever we give some information to the official opposition, their House leader will not complain because somebody is being transferred.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose on a question of privilege which under previous rules would have been heard during the question period. Under the new rules, which I believe all members would agree have been very successful, the question of privilege was deferred until three o'clock. It is not, of course, a true question of privilege. However, it was based on a reference by the minister to some remarks over the weekend by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
I would not want to get into a discussion of the general principles of the program of decentralization or the other peripheral views which relate to it. The question of privilege has a very narrow scope even in theory; that is, that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was aggrieved by the reference made by the minister. That matter has been contributed to by
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
the member offended and by the minister. There is no question of privilege, and I think that the matter ought to stop there.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table references to the administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, with regard to Horne and Pit-field Foods Limited, Sklar Furniture Limited, Elmira Public Utilities Commission, and the town of Keewatin, Ontario.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-405, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Lethbridge-Foothills).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, my reason for asking for the change from "Lethbridge" to "Lethbridge-Foothills" is that there is one city in my riding which lies at the eastern end of the riding and the new boundary extending to the foothills and the Rocky Mountains. I therefore request this change, Mr. Speaker.


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

Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 7, 1977

Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand today. The usual information sheet for the assistance of members of the House was circulated earlier in the day and it contained an error. 1 apologize for perhaps confusing some members with respect to that matter, but all questions are to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the Minister of Transport) that Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy of Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport, and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on Bill C-33 to amend the National Transportation Act. Coming from Atlantic Canada, I suppose I can say I could get complete unanimity on two questions. First, lack of transportation is the popular reason in Atlantic Canada why economic development has not kept pace with development in other parts of Canada. Second, as a corollary to the many transportation problems we are facing, I suppose I could also get agreement from people on all sides of the political fence with the immortal words of a former minister of transport, namely that our transportation policy in this country is in a mess. So on the subject of transportation 1 think there is consensus.
Solutions to our transportation problems vary, obviously, 'depending on where you sit, who you are, and sometimes what political stripe you wear. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, transportation is almost above and beyond politics. Those in Atlantic Canada have been frustrated in their continued attempts to try to come to grips with this question. Transportation should provide the base for a proper and balanced development of Atlantic Canada. Yet in the words of a former minister of transport, one of the reasons this has not taken
National Transportation Act
place is that our whole transportation policy, as I have said, is in a mess.
From that viewpoint, Mr. Speaker, let me turn to Bill C-33. Frankly, I do so with trepidation. I wonder whether it is going to resolve the admitted mess into which this government and its predecessors of the same political stripe have placed transportation. What scares me is the fundamental flip-flop of the government in regard to the National Transportation Act passed by this House in 1967. Bill C-231, as it was known, was debated several years ago when I was a member of the House, and 1 heard Mr. Pickersgill, the then minister of transport, continuously expounding all the worthy, positive principles contained in the legislation, including the fact that there was to be created a Canadian Transportation Commission, of which, ironically or prophetically, he became chairman. Never did a minister of this House have such pride of authorship. For not only did he father, sire, wean and feed Bill C-231 which created the CTC, but he found he had to go to his Valhalla and become its first chairman.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Sounds like legislative incest.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As my hon. friend for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) says, never has there been such legislative incest, with a minister fathering a bill to which he then becomes the nursemaid when he leaves this green chamber. I do not know what the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has in mind if he survives another election, but one thing I do know is that he does not intend to be successor to the present chairman of the CTC, because Bill C-33 effectively castrates the power, authority and stability of the CTC which is charged with the responsibility of solving our present complex transportation problems and the mess which the former minister of transport admitted.
A quick perusal of Bill C-33 indicates that some of its clauses directly remove power from the CTC and transfer it to the governor in council. According to my count, there are 11 clauses in the bill providing that the governor in council shall make policy, not the CTC. The CTC will be the implementer, as I understand it, of ministerial discretion emanating from the minister's office. As a sequel, Mr. Speaker, there is another interesting provision in the amendments in Bill C-33 which provide that the minister shall, or may, do such and such and so and so. This appears in five separate places. For all practical purposes, the CTC will have no basic power in policy-making.
This will create confusion in the sea of confusion and will pile mess upon mess. Parliament is supposed to be supreme: We are always hearing those words related to interpretations of the Broadcasting Act or to the decisions of the CTC-that the minister cannot do something or other because it is not the will of parliament and he would not want to touch the vague, esoteric, undefinable will of parliament. The minister can claim that he is no longer going to hide behind the will of parliament and that all problems of transportation will come

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
to his desk. In the House and in committee he will be exposed to legitimate questions, and it will be incumbent upon him to reply to those questions because he can no longer use the CTC as a decoy. That is the reply to the supposed argument of the minister.
The recent history of transportation in this country bothers me in regard to the minister and his predecessor. If he had been allowed to exercise ministerial discretion, many parts of the country, not just Atlantic Canada, would have been adversely affected. I will explain that point in the next few minutes.
This is an extreme bill, in a vital area that is fundamental to the economic development of the country. It is too important to have the power delegated, in effect, from this chamber to the minister's office and, in effect, to de facto neutralize the CTC. No one in this chamber would complain that when the chips are down there has to be political control. The minister appoints the chairman and the commissioners of the CTC. A lot of them are very good friends of his and some have been good members of this House. That is a different thing from the political science theory, however, that there has to be political control of the decision- and policy-making right in the minister's office without the benefit of public ventilation of those policies which the CTC now provides.
To have the CTC emasculated in the way this bill intends, with the minister responding to the political whims, for political survival, that happen from time to time, will not give us what we need in this country either in transportation or in the economic fabric of the land-and that is continuity and stability in policy-making. Regardless of political stripe, I think a minister of transport can handle the day to day problems, the complex, conflicting and competing claims of transportation and bring continuity and stability at least to the CTC. But there should be a review procedure so that if the CTC takes the wrong road or comes up with the wrong decision, the minister can step in. To completely eliminate that initial public ventilation by the CTC would be a retrograde step and would not enhance the development of a transportation policy.
The turnover of ministers is significant, Mr. Speaker. We can take 1968, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was incarnated, as the demarcation point; when he said things which I am sure he will wish he had never said. There have been five ministers of transport since then, starting with Mr. Hellyer to April, 1969, Mr. Richardson as acting minister until May, 1969, Mr. Jamieson-and I will have a few words to say about him-from May, 1969, to November, 1972, Mr. Marchand from 1972 to 1975, and the present minister who took office in September, 1975. At the moment, in theory and sometimes in practice, he is the fifth minister since 1968.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. There have been two chairmen of the Canadian Transport Commission since 1968, Mr. Pickersgill and the present incumbent, Mr. Benson. So there have been five ministers of transport and two chairmen of the CTC since 1968. This shows that by its very make-up the CTC will, in an apolitical, non-pejorative way bring a little more stability and continuity to policy-making
[Mr. Nowlan.J
than the ever-changing, revolving musical chairs necessitated by cabinet appointments.
The powers the minister will have through order in council-and there are 11-make him not only the transportation czar of Canada, but he could become the economic czar as well through his interpretation of the rates to be charged for competing commodities and his analysis and definition of a review of what "variable costs" mean. While the CTC might review the formula, the bill provides that the minister could dictate where industries and firms should locate and what should be grown. There is no provision for review by parliament or any real review by the Canadian Transport Commission.
I suggest that a brief history of what the minister wanted to do in the last year or so does not lend any great confidence to giving the minister this blank cheque to make transportation policy without any reference whatsoever to parliament. I became a member of this House in 1965, and since then I have seen many bills delegate power to ministers, in some cases with power of review by parliament or an outside board; but I do not think there has ever been a bill that gives so much power to one minister as Bill C-33. I hope this is not a forerunner of the new telecommunications legislation that is supposed to come before the House.
There have been hints that the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) wants undiluted, unqualified power directed to her so that she can direct the CTC. We will have a situation in this country in which the Minister of Transport, with unfettered powers in transport, economic planning and economic development, will control the economic side of this country, and the Minister of Communications, if there are similar provisions for delegating power by order in council replacing the power of parliament and changing the position of the CRTC, becoming the czar of culture in this land in all the manifest and various forms affecting broadcasting, films, video and cable. Then we will really be moving a long way down the road to an Orwellian society with Big Brother. Quite frankly, the Minister of Transport has many attributes, but one which would not make me too happy is to have him any more like Big Brother, which is one reason I look at Bill C-33 with a great deal of skepticism and reserve. I do not see, at this stage, why he should be allowed this delegated power.
One only has to look at the recent past involving Atlantic Canada, in particular, when the minister, in the general government restraint program, wanted to change a fundamental and basic provision in our legislation to do with "at and east" rates which help the export of flour to offshore markets. If the minister had his way-as, in effect, the amendment under Bill C-33 would let him have his way-the preferred rates for moving flour to offshore export markets would have been eliminated a long time ago.
The Minister of Transport lacks credibility. Assurances were given to the maritime premiers at the time when a change was made in the restraint bill and the section having to

do with "at and east" rates was deleted. At that time the maritime premiers thought it was deleted for good and that the "at and east" rates would stay. We are talking about a relatively few million dollars-about $4 million to $5 million. An assurance was given, direct or implied, that if that section was removed from the restraint bill so as to help the passage of the bill, the "at and east" rates would not be tampered with and the problem would not come up again.
Yet we hear now, since the restraint bill became law, that the minister intends to bring back the legislation to eliminate "at and east" rates in another way. Quite frankly, under Bill C-33, using some of the powers which we would give him under that bill, if he could get it in place in time, he would not have to bring in another bill but under ministerial discretion, and using powers given to him in Bill C-33, he could eliminate "at and east" rates. Thus, he could get rid of what he considers to be a meddlesome and contradictory situation where we in the east receive preferred treatment in the export flour trade and do not fall completely victim to his theoretical user-pay concept in the transport of goods and people.
What faith can anyone in Atlantic Canada have in the user-pay concept when we hear the minister making a press statement about eliminating, with the stroke of a pen, about $1 billion worth of debt on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and at the same time saying he will charge proper tolls? By "proper tolls" he means to charge double the present rate. Already we have had a howl not only from eastern Canada and western Canada but from central Canada as well about what this will do to the economic development of the whole of Canada. Eliminating, with the stroke of a pen, a debt of almost $1 billion, which has accumulated on the St. Lawrence Seaway, is not in accordance with the user-pay concept. Flow the minister can build credibility by suggesting that this debt can be eliminated overnight or with a stroke of his pen or, in effect, through discretionary provisions under Bill C-33 without, on the other hand, guaranteeing a proper toll structure on the St. Lawrence Seaway with input from all those adversely affected, so that we do not start a new debt, is something I find difficult to accept. The two have to go hand in hand.
We in Atlantic Canada reluctantly went along with the financing of the St. Lawrence Seaway because we believed at the time, and we still believe, that it was good for the national development of the country, even though we knew it would have an adverse effect on Atlantic ports. But to have the debt structure of Atlantic ports on the books and not forgiven with a stroke of the pen, as the minister did with the St. Lawrence Seaway debt, is inequitable and in our eyes is not the proper exercise of ministerial discretion. It makes us very reluctant to grant to the minister the power which he seeks under Bill C-33 in its unamended form.
If he can do with the St. Lawrence Seaway what he intends to do now with the powers given to him under Bill C-33, we in the east will be completely shut out unless we are able to get to his left ear and make sure his right ear is blocked so that he hears no one else speaking in his right ear. Whoever gets to the minister's ear gets his attention. We know his nanny has his
National Transportation Act
one ear-and who else can get his attention when his nanny has it? We do not have confidence in the Minister of Transport because of the way he has abused his own principle of user-pay, and we do not have faith in him.
We wonder what he is going to do with regard to fundamental questions affecting not only all of Canada but especially Atlantic Canada. We do not have to talk only about "at and east" rates which are still legislatively suspended above the House and are still on the minister's desk to do what he wants with them. We can consider the recent debate on former Bill C-61, the maritime code, which was supposed to implement the Darling report which was supposed to do many things for many people and, in effect, would make Canadian ships manned by Canadian seamen serve Canadian ports.
We all know the pluses and minuses of this basic argument. But my point is not to debate the plus and minus of Bill C-61 but to use it as an illustration. If Bill C-33 is put in place, there would not be the opportunity, however rare it might be in the House-and in the words of the Prime Minister we are all nobodies anyway-through the work of such diligent members as the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forestall) and other hon. members with a long-standing interest in the maritime code, to spotlight and bring attention to the provisions of Bill C-61.
While statements were made in the House about the assurances given to the maritime premiers, it turned out, as often happens, that they were not worth anything. When we were younger there used to be something called the Boy Scouts, although this is a pejorative term now. Now they are debating whether there should, be "girl scouts" or "person scouts". In my young days we used to play the Kipling game. You would look at ten objects on the table and say what they were and this would be repeated ten times over. By the tenth time there would be ten other things on the table because, due to the vagaries of human nature and the fallibility of tongue, eye and ear, if you repeat a story several times it becomes garbled. In this case you ended up with different items on the table from the ones the first person saw.
I have been in the House and heard the Minister of Transport state that assurances were given and that they were acceptable to the Atlantic premiers with regard to the maritime code, that there would be safeguards so that the Atlantic ports would not be adversely affected. Less than a year ago verbal assurances were given in this House, but there must have been some slip between lip and ear. Some of the statements were perhaps not reassuring to the Atlantic premiers. Over a year ago the then chairman of the council of maritime premiers, Mr. Hatfield, sent a telex to the Minister of Transport with regard to the maritime code saying, among other things:
The governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are most concerned that the maritime code bill, which includes changes to the coasting trade law, is now before the parliament of Canada, while the assurances given by your predecessor, Honourable Jean Marchand to the council of mari-

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
time premiers and to the Premier of Newfoundland in September, 1973, have not been fulfilled.
These assurances, which were made public, included-
Then it lists four assurances which were given, but because of changes in ministers, in this case from Mr. Marchand to the present minister, verbal assurances are sometimes confused, even though they are given in good faith. Changes in ministers can lead to confusion. The maritime code was before this parliament and was vigorously debated. It fundamentally affects any coastal member or community and the economic development of those communities. I suggest that if Bill C-33 had been in place we would not have had to worry about debate. We would not have had to worry about the committee, and we might very well have had the minister move in his own arbitrary and unilateral fashion to develop the changes without proper public scrutiny. Assurances could have been given or written into the legislation.
Something very close to my heart is the movement of feed grains from the west into Nova Scotia, particularly the Annapolis Valley. I am all for developing local feed grains, but with the soil conditions and the need we have, and while we have programs to stimulate development of local feed grains, there is still a fundamental need for the movement of feed grains from the west to the east. This has always been considered basic to Atlantic Canada. However, over the last few years its place on the totem pole of security has not been high enough. Farmers have not been able to make plans; they have not been assured of assistance for moving feed grains east. That assurance slowly slipped away. That item is as sacrosanct as perhaps the Crowsnest pass rates, although it was not embodied in legislation; it is just an item in the estimates. Each year the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the eastern farmers have to wait to see the estimates in order to know the amount of assistance there is to be for the movement of feed grains.
There is quite a debate going on in agricultural circles and before the agricultural research economic council as to the pluses and minuses with respect to the movement of feed grains. In fact, in an agricultural way I do not think there is any question which has as many cross-currents-geographical, political, let alone economic-as the question of feed grains. Some ministers of transport and ministers of agriculture have said that the subsidy should be eliminated and that the local areas which need feed grains should produce them. I am not today arguing the merits of that position. I am trying to point out that by giving a minister arbitrary power, without public ventilation on this question, we might inadvertently effect a program, which has been pretty basic to much of eastern agriculture, eliminated by the stroke of a pen.
There is Parkinson's law and another law stating that it is more difficult to reverse a wrong decision than to influence the decision before it is made. Once there is a ministerial or bureaucratic decision, the proverbial pride of authorship is involved. Natural ego is involved, and it is difficult to change. Obviously, some factors go into decisions and people do not want to be shown to have made wrong decisions. There is a
[Mr. Nowlan.J
danger in giving arbitrary power to a minister when there has not been prior public ventilation. Giving a minister arbitrary power allows him to make decisions which inadvertently could be wrong decisions, but they are very difficult to reverse.
In terms of "at and east rates" respecting the maritime code, Bill C-61-which was debated over the last couple of years-in terms of the movement of eastern feed grains, in terms of the inequity of the St. Lawrence Seaway debt structure, about which nothing has been done, and there has been no intention either expressed or implied to do anything about the debt structure of the ports of Halifax and Saint John, no Atlantic Canadian member can look with equanimity at a bill giving a minister so much power and allowing him to exercise so much ministerial discretion. Another reason we in Atlantic Canada look with a great deal of skepticism at Bill C-33 is the shift in ministers.


Mr. Paproski:: Shifty ministers.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Inadvertently, some of them perhaps have been shifty. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) has a basic point there. I want to play back for the record something which has irritated me for several years. The last time Atlantic transportation problems were really debated in this House was when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) was minister of transport. That was in the 1969 period. At that time the legislation under debate was the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act which involved itself with something we thought up to that time was pretty fundamental to Atlantic Canada, the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We in the east thought that was very basic to us. We asked for some protection and as members of confederation we thought we deserved it. The recommendations of a royal commission of the 1920s were incorporated into a form of subsidy assistance to help us get our goods from Atlantic Canada into central Canadian markets.
The Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act varied and qualified, in effect, certain parts of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was then the minister of transport, and one of the reasons that bill became law without perhaps more violent objection from Atlantic members was the assurance given by the minister. We are not babes in the woods. We know that assurances given in the House have no real legislative effect-but they are indications of intent. At that time, on June 17, 1969, at page 10226 of Hansard the minister said that the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act was just the beginning of a comprehensive Atlantic transportation policy. He said it was just one bill, that there would be many other bills and that we should not get too worried because the government would move in a comprehensive way on Atlantic transportation problems. I said earlier that that received the approval of all the people of Atlantic Canada, although there were diverse opinions as to what the full solution should be. Among other things, the then minister said as reported at page 10226 of Hansard:
-I may say in a general way that this is only part of the comprehensive transportation policy which is being evolved for the Atlantic region, and these are measures that it was felt, and I believe hon. members will agree, ought to be
March 7, 1977

put into effect as quickly as possible. There will be, of course, considerable additional legislation ... we will be proposing at a subsequent date amendments to existing legislation or perhaps entirely new legislation.
That was said on June 17, 1969. Later in the debate as it was concluding in that memorable June of 1969, on June 19, as reported at page 10383 of Hansard, the minister said:
When I made reference to this bill as being an interim measure, I want to assure the House that I meant that it is only interim in the sense that it represents a portion of a much broader concept that we hope to develop with the help of the very excellent report of the transport committee in the coming months and on which I will be working during the summer recess.
I was a member of the committee. We toured Atlantic Canada for weeks, brought in a unanimous report and made unanimous recommendations. Concurrently, the Atlantic premiers also made unanimous, comprehensive recommendations concerning Atlantic transportation policy. The minister had both reports in his mind when he said that this bill represents a portion of a much broader concept. He went on to say:
There is no suggestion, and I want to make this perfectly clear to the House, that there will be any significant change in any of the measures which either now prevail or which, I hope, will prevail following the passage of this legislation until and unless this more comprehensive program is brought forward and until there has been full-scale consultation with the premiers and the representatives of the Atlantic provinces.
He said all this on June 19. There was a previous statement made on June 17, 1969. To be fair, there have been changes in official committees working on Atlantic transportation. They have made recommendations concerning transportation. But as for the substance of the matter, as for more comprehensive changes under the National Transportation Act, there has been no change. There has been no platform put forward, no plank of a platform or even a nail of a plank, to do with any concrete program for Atlantic transportation.
I gather that my allotted time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. The minister has read the report the transport committee made in 1969 and the recommendations of the premiers. Nevertheless, remembering the assurances made in the past and given in this House, we on my side of the House are not happy with Bill C-33.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33, a bill to amend the National Transportation Act, is another instalment of legislation concerning our national transport system, a system once envisaged as a national dream. It has become a national nightmare. The NDP does not support it because we fear its long-term implications for a rational and efficient transport system.
What should a national transport policy include? I shall consider that question, consider what has happened in the last few years, consider what the bill proposes to do, why we think it will fail and propose alternative policies. What should be the goals of any national transportation policy? Surely it must encourage, and not obstruct, the free flow of people and goods
National Transportation Act
in Canada. It must not discriminate against regions either on grounds of geographic location or economic health. We should consider our rail, road, air and marine networks as a means for promoting national unity. All our people must be treated equally. No matter in which region of Canada they live or which goods they process and manufacture, they must have access to various modes of transportation. Surely that ought to be the goal if we are at all serious about designing an adequate national transportation system. Second, we must create an instrument which will give us the framework for undertaking economic and regional development in Canada. If these are legitimate goals, as I think they are-and I hope hon. members accept them as reasonable and obtainable-the question arises, how can we best achieve them?
It seems to me that we must follow a certain course if we are to succeed. First, we must devise a national transportation policy which is an instrument of public or government policy and not an instrument solely of private profit. In other words, our national transportation system must be operated as a public utility. Second, we can only reach the goals I have outlined by replacing the present policy of competition between various modes of transportation with a policy of co-ordination and integration. Third, we must abandon the false premises which the Liberal and Conservative parties accept; that is, abandon the idea of commercial viability and users bearing transport costs, for such ideas are inherent in previous legislation and in the present legislation.
What is the situation in Canada? What is the condition of our country's transportation? Looking at our national transportation system, we see it is in a sad state. It is unco-ordinated. Road, rail and air services are not integrated. Interconnections between different modes are often non-existent. Sometimes you must stay overnight in a town before you can switch to another mode of transport. Timing, schedules and services are bad. Also, the movement of goods is not coordinated. A characteristic of our system is-that it discriminates, a discrimination evident in freight rates and the matter of regional development.
When I say this I think of the dilemma facing less developed, poorer regions of the country, such as the Atlantic provinces, northern Quebec and particularly my region, northern Ontario. Our freight rates are discriminatory. Although the government gives grants to encourage development and job creation in the regions, the planning and hard work of our people is frustrated by a national transportation system which charges discriminatory freight rates and works against the development of regional industry and manufacturing in favour of maintaining the status quo in manufacturing in central Canada. The same can be said about raw materials which we obtain basically from the west and the north of Canada.
When we look at our national transportation system, in addition to the two problems I have mentioned we notice a deterioration of service. One has only to look at the standard of efficiency of rail passenger service, or the phase-out by this

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
government of some of the coastal ferry system, to see how the general public is being discouraged from using these facilities and suffering because of lack of service. When we look at the situation we cannot help but agree with the former minister of transport when he stated in this House that the transportation system in Canada is in a mess. It is there for everyone to see. The more fundamental point is to examine why we are in this transportation mess today. How did we get into this situation? One does not have to look far for the reason.
In 1967, this House of Commons was debating the National Transportation Act which organized transportation policy on the basis of competition and commercial viability. In other words, the two railway systems in Canada were to compete with one another and railways were to compete with trucking firms and air transport, and vice versa. In 1967 we were told that was the great salvation to ending the transportation problem in Canada: "Let us have competition, and this will create efficiency. The transportation system will thrive and all the regions and people of Canada will benefit".
Surely any person with a knowledge of Canadian history and geography knows that a policy based on those premises is bound to fail. Canada is a country of vast distances and a sparsely scattered population. Because of the great distances between communities and small population in the various towns and cities outside the large metropolitan areas, if you rely solely on the premise of competition and commercial viability those small communities and regions will not get the service. No profit-making corporation in its right mind will build a railway line, put a truck transportation system or airline into areas in which they cannot make a profit. Therefore, you are faced with a dilemma. Either you ignore the bulk of our population which is in scattered areas of Canada or you go around the system of commercial viability and implement subsidies so that service may be maintained for Canadians in these regions. That is what the government has been forced to do.
The logic of geography, history and economics has meant that we must subsidize our transportation systems so that the poorer, less developed and sparsely populated regions can get rail, air and road services in terms of providing people with a chance to move and to bring in and ship out goods. This is what has happened with regard to the maritimes, northern Ontario and the far north. Without the subsidy system we would not have the service. In the debate in 1966 and 1967 the New Democratic Party pointed out that basic fact. They argued that we could not expect the poor and sparsely populated areas of Canada to pay the total cost. User-pay is not feasible in a country such as Canada. Competition does not make economic sense in Canada when so many areas, because of their size, are dependent on a single mode of service.
To base a transportation policy on the premise of user-pay and commercial viability undoes the whole idea of confederation and what this nation is about. We came together as a nation to pool our resources and our wealth and to share our benefits among the regions. The idea was that through the national government all taxpayers shared the cost of common
[Mr. Symes.j
services, whether they be medicare, old age pensions or access to transportation. If we do not work on the premise that all Canadians should be treated fairly and equally in terms of what they, as Canadians, can expect from the services of this country, we end up making second-class citizens out of people who live in the poorer and less developed regions of this country. What is true in terms of creating equality of condition in social services is also true in terms of transportation services. Transportation has to be looked at in terms of service and not only cost. It has to be looked at in terms of a public service that should be available to all Canadians at a reasonable cost. What I am saying is not some new philosophy. It is not a philosophy peculiar to the New Democratic Party. It has been accepted because of common sense and history. It has been accepted by every municipality in this country.
When we look at the kinds of services that are provided to people we see that fire departments are no longer run on the competitive system. In ancient Rome there were two fire departments. If a house were on fire, each brigade would rush over and the bidding would begin to see which one would put out the fire. We accept the principle that all taxpayers, through their municipal governments, should pay taxes in order to receive common service from one fire department. It is a public utility. The same is true of city sidewalks. We do not have a toll gate on every sidewalk based on the principle that the user pays for walking on that sidewalk. If that were the case there would not be enough money to build sidewalks in a neighbourhood. Therefore, we pool our resources through the common tax system and provide sidewalks to be used for all in the city.
The same is true with the bus services in municipal transportation. If that were done with the user-pay concept, those who depend on bus services would never have that kind of service because the cost would be prohibitive. For that reason, municipal governments must subsidize buses to the extent that revenue falls below costs. The bus service is run as a public utility.
What makes me so angry is that the federal government still fails to recognize the obvious about transportation in Canada-that a competitive system distorts transportation goals and discriminates against users in various regions. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is, unfortunately, still wedded to the indefensible concept of commercial viability as the principal component of a national transportation policy. It is this idea which has produced the mess in which we find ourselves in the field of transport today. The thinking behind this legislation still shows that the government is wedded to the concept of commercial viability and user-pay. It is a principle which can never work effectively in this country.
What does the bill say? Competition is still the norm. There are exceptions in the legislation, a few changes, but they do not alter the basic principle. The bill tells us in effect, "Where a transportation system is mature, the user must pay the full cost of the service". We find that the costing date supplied by
March 7, 1977

the railway companies will be used as the basis for establishing freight rates. As one who comes from northern Ontario, I am concerned that this should be the case, because I know it will perpetuate the kind of discrimination in freight rates which has for so long inhibited industrial development in my area.
Further, the legislation gives the Minister of Transport a blank cheque in terms of the orders he may issue to the CTC on policy matters. I am worried about the danger of putting power of this kind into the hands of a minister who is basically unsympathetic to the idea of public service being the norm when considering transportation policy. When 1 hear the minister talk about selling off certain parts of the CNR which were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and which, after many years, have now become profitable, my fears become even greater. In my opinion, this would be one of the most backward steps imaginable. The proposal is indicative of the private enterprise philosophy held by the minister in relation to public transportation.
I have stated that the government's transportation policy discriminates against various regions of Canada. In northern Ontario, for example, we possess great wealth in the form of raw materials-minerals and forest products. Over the years we have been hewers of wood and drawers of water. We take the minerals from the ground, cut the trees, load them on to boxcars and ore cars and ship them to southern Ontario or the United States where they are processed for manufacture into goods some of which are subsequently sold to us. Of course, as we export our raw materials we export our jobs. Unemployment in northern Ontario is persistently high. Our people must move out of the region, against their will, to look for jobs in the south where the processing of our raw materials takes place. This persistent lack of job opportunities arises to a large extent from a freight rate system which encourages the export of raw materials as opposed to manufactured goods.
If some businessmen or government agency wanted to set up a plan for processing more of our nickel-for example, in the Sudbury region-or associated metals such as copper, they would find that the level of freight rates would make the venture prohibitive: it would cost more to ship processed goods to southern Ontario than it would to ship nickel. For example, in my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie there is a large steel industry. If we wanted to diversify and carry the processing of the steel further, to embark upon its fabrication for the automobile or the appliance industries, freight rates would work against such diversification. As long as we leave the freight rate system as it is, basically at the discretion of the railway companies to manipulate to their own advantage in accordance with the profit motive, we shall not get the industrial development in northern Ontario that we should be getting.
I turn now to another area of national transportation, the St. Lawrence Seaway. I should like to call attention particularly to what is happening in my area of Sault Ste. Marie. We have one Canadian lock at this important juncture of the Great Lakes. It is a small lock. It has not been upgraded and it is only able to handle about 35 per cent of the ships using the
National Transportation Act
system. There are no tolls on either the Canadian or the United States locks at Sault Ste. Marie, but the Canadian lock provides us with our only option in terms of a Canadian entrance to the upper lakes. Yet the government is hearing representations from the Dominion Marine Association to close the lock as a cost-saving measure.
Mr. Speaker, it costs only $1.1 million a year to run the lock. Closing it would end the Canadian option at that important point on the Seaway system; we would be obliged to rely entirely on the United States facilities. In my opinion, this would indeed be a backward step and I do not think the government would agree to taking it. We should be building a second Canadian lock or, at least, upgrading the one we have in order that we could effectively move goods along the system to the advantage of those who live in my area. In this case the government is in a position where it might reduce subsidies and cut back on costs only to the detriment of citizens in our area who regard the Sault lock as an integral part of the St. Lawrence Seaway system. My plea is that these locks not be downgraded but that they maintain 24-hour operation and be expanded so they are able to fulfil their proper function.
I want to discuss another aspect of our national transportation system. I refer to railway passenger services. Here we can see how the bias of the government is against railway passenger services and in favour of air and bus services. The minister is embarking upon a policy of phasing out one of our transcontinental railway services. Most likely the plan will be to maintain the CPR passenger service from Montreal to Winnipeg and then to split the line into the CN and CPR routes to Vancouver. This will mean leaving communities along the CN line in northern Ontario in the lurch. It will mean unemployment for many railway workers along the transcontinental railway system and, indeed, may mean the death of certain railway towns.
The minister argues that subsidized railways are becoming too costly; therefore he should start phasing out some railway passenger services. The point is that subsidies are necessary to provide service to the people and to keep the cost of goods transported by rail to the regions down to a reasonable level. What the minister fails to tell Canadians, when he talks about the high cost of railway passenger service, is that the government is also subsidizing, but to a much higher degree, other modes of transportation.
In 1973, the last year for which I have figures, all other modes of transportation were subsidized, but indirectly so that we do not see headlines like, "Government spends 'X' millions of dollars on railway subsidies". For example, revenues from air transport paid for only 31 per cent of the costs of that system. Revenues from marine transport paid for only 19 per cent of the cost of operating our marine services. As for road transport, revenues paid 64 per cent of total operating costs. However, revenues gained by the railways paid 74 per cent of the cost of operating the railway system. So that the argument of the minister that he is paying too much in the form of

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
subsidies to the railways just does not hold water, in light of the evidence.
The federal government is building airports and paying personnel to operate those airports. This is a form of indirect subsidy. We know that federal and provincial governments build roads and a new highway today costs about $1 million per mile. That is a form of subsidy to the truckers and private automobile users. The railways, of course, build their own roadbed. I maintain that all modes of transport in Canada today are subsidized for the benefit of the user: no mode of transportation pays its own way.
The government has deliberately allowed rail passenger service to be downgraded. The Minister of Transport admitted this in the House on January 29, 1976, when he said, as reported at page 10437 of Hansard:
We have operated extensive rail passenger services in Canada. However, they have been allowed to deteriorate so that Canadians no longer have a fair incentive to use them. This was in no way due to any fault on the part of those who operate the trains, but to a combination of management and government policies which could only produce losses and worsening service.
In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that Canadians are not using railway passenger service as much as before, and therefore subsidy payments made by the taxpayers are too high, or they are not necessary, and railway passenger service must be reduced. I submit the policy should be the opposite: we should be upgrading our services to encourage use. Railways are more economic in regard to shipping goods and passengers.
In this regard I should like to refer the House to the total amount of subsidies that are paid. The net subsidy for passenger transportation in all modes in 1974 amounted to $909 million. Roads received 62.7 per cent of that total subsidy; air received 22.5 per cent; the railways received 14.8 per cent. In other words, proportionately less subsidy was paid for rail passenger service than for other modes. In terms of energy consumption, railway passenger service is much more economical that any other mode of transportation. Passenger miles per gallon by a DC-9 aircraft averaged out to 34; a B-727 averaged out at 37 passenger miles per gallon; an automobile averaged 63 passenger miles per gallon; a bus 280; whereas a turbo-train averaged 256; and the LRC averaged 303 passenger miles per gallon. So if this government is serious about energy conservation, it should be promoting more passenger rail services. Needless to say, trains cause less pollution than jets, buses or cars. They are also safer, and cheaper for the passenger in terms of energy costs, which are driving up air fares and the cost of operating an automobile.
The government seems to be allowing the CPR gradually to phase out its passenger services, especially in regions like northern Ontario. For example, the CPR wants to end its passenger service between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, yet in light of the evidence that I have put forward it seems to me that logic dictates that the service should be upgraded. We would then be able to co-ordinate schedules and introduce a fast, efficient regional train service in the Sault Ste. Marie-Sudbury-Toronto corridor and the Sault Ste. Marie-Sudbury-Montreal corridor. Upgrading can take place in other areas

too. As the Canadian Railway Labour Association said in its brief to the cabinet:
For example, CN has estimated that 3'/5-hour train service (competitive with the comparable air trip time) from Toronto to Montreal can be accomplished for $150 million in right-of-way upgrading. By comparison, a new cutoff in Montreal connecting route 20 with the northern autoroute to Mirabel will cost approximately $130 million.
So there is much that can be done in terms of relative costs to make the railway service the kind of service it should be and which Canadians expect it to be. The Liberal government has reneged on its past election promises to create viable passenger service between the regions and to grant money to promote a mass transit system in the larger cities. In past policies, in the policy that is implied in this bill and in other announcements, the Minister of Transport is persisting in the commercial viability, competition and user-pay concept. This is a concept which, sad to say, will discriminate against regions and those who must depend upon rail and other services to promote, co-ordinate and integrate an efficient and economic transportation system. It seems to me that this government is going to repeat the mistakes of the past and will not solve the problems of regional development, of fair cost and access to the services that Canadians expect, if it continues with this legislation and the kinds of precepts the minister has announced.
We know we have an enthusiastic and capable work force in the transportation system whether it be rail, air or marine service. They are the backbone of the system and anxious to serve the public, but they want to be treated fairly. This government's actions in terms of lack of safety and job security, as well as in wages and salaries-the Anti-Inflation Board has rolled back the legitimate wage demands of the workers- are undermining the transportation system. Mr. Justice Hall of the Supreme Court, after looking at all the evidence, came to the conclusion that in 1975 railway workers should have received a 13 per cent wage increase. The Anti-Inflation Board arbitrarily rolled that back to 9.3 per cent, undermining the morale of these very competent workers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that unless we design a system of national transportation to provide reasonable service at reasonable cost and equity for the regions of Canada, we will be doing a disservice to the Canadian people. It is my opinion that this government, and specifically this legislation, is doing that disservice.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to enter this debate. The legislation we are dealing with today is of utmost importance to Canadians. My province of British Columbia entered confederation because of a national transportation policy that resulted in the building of a national railway. Chinese workers were recruited in large numbers to work on the railway that was to bind this nation together. My grandfather was one of those nation-builders. It is because I have an awareness of that history that I applaud the government in its initiative to redefine the framework that would provide us with a transportation policy to meet Canada's future needs.

I welcome the stated policy of the government. Commercial viability, wherever possible, ensures the earnest attempt to minimize government intervention in the marketplace. Equally gratifying is the policy's recognition that some regional areas or some parts of the transportation system where services are required in the national or regional interest but cannot be viably operated on a commercial basis demand the federal government's active support of direct or indirect financial help.
The movement toward re-establishing the policy authority within the government will unquestionably enable the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to take a much more positive role in developing transportation policies. The initiative to strengthen the minimum and maximum provision of the railway freight rates act is welcome news to westerners. 1 urge the government to proceed as quickly as possible in this area so that westerners will not continue having to pay a disproportionate amount of freight for manufactured goods from eastern Canada. Westerners will also welcome the stated provisions to regulate the practice of long-haul and short-haul rates by railway companies.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who delivered the speech for the Minister of Transport, spent a considerable length of time outlining the government's current transportation program. Indeed, it is a bold and imaginative one; but, like any other major policy designed to bind this nation together, it has to be flexible to meet the needs of the diverse areas and regions of our great nation. With that in mind, it is my intention to discuss how this program is affecting the people of British Columbia.
The matters I wish to discuss are as follows: first, Pacific Western Airlines; second, shipping subsidies for west coast shipping; third, urban transportation assistance. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Her Majesty the Queen, in right of the province of Alberta, was not a person within the meaning of that term in the National Transportation Act and the air carrier regulations. The result of this decision was that the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission was without jurisdiction to require Her Majesty the Queen, in right of the province of Alberta, to obtain the consent of the commission to the acquisition and control of Pacific Western Airlines Limited or to inquire into the question of whether acquisition of the shares was in the public interest.
I submit that this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada did not, however, declare that the air transport committee has no authority to govern Pacific Western Airlines as an air carrier. Federal aviation law is still applicable. The committee in the past held that it had jurisdiction to question whether the movement of key officials and facilities was a breach of the airline's licence to provide adequate equipment, facilities and services in British Columbia. Furthermore, the committee has rightly maintained its supervisory power over tariffs and safety matters. But in the interlocutory hearings before the committee in July, 1976, there was no hearing into the important issue of whether the transfer of Pacific Western Airlines from British Columbia to Alberta would not be in the public
National Transportation Act
interest. With that in mind, I strongly urge the Minister of Transport to grant the petition of the British Columbia government.
The petition requests the Minister of Transport to direct that the air transport committee conduct an inquiry to determine whether the transfer is in the public interest. If there is any doubt on the part of the federal government whether it has the necessary legislative authority, I urge it immediately to enact legislation giving it the power to ensure that the Queen, in right of the province of Alberta and any other province that may in the future become engaged in aviation, is subject to federal law.
Mr. Speaker, I take this position because, first, I strongly feel that the government of Alberta, through its ownership of the airline, will not adequately account for the availability and supply of air transportation services for the people and goods to, from and within British Columbia.
Second, I feel that the government of Alberta, through its ownership of Pacific Western Airlines, will not act in the best interests of British Columbia because the removal of any of the administrative headquarters and/or maintenance activities will adversely affect all areas of the province by eliminating the indirect and direct employment and income derived from the airline.
Third, I feel the government of Alberta, through its ownership of Pacific Western Airlines and its declared intention to focus all future northern expansion through Edmonton, will not adequately allow for a proper development of potential air routes between the interior of British Columbia and the Yukon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Indeed, the minister of transportation for the province of Alberta, the Hon. Hugh M. Horner, is on record in his legislature as stating:
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons we acquired, in a very bold move, Pacific Western Airlines; so that we could look after the people of Alberta in a very real sense, look after the transportation of goods and strengthen our position in northern development, which is one of the exciting things that will happen in this country in the future. It was acquired, Mr. Speaker, not just as an investment, but as a policy mechanism for the government of Alberta to have some input into how the province developed in the direction that development would take. Let there be no misunderstanding by anybody, relative to the reasons and, indeed, the subsequent acquisition.
Fourth, regional airline policy accounts for the regional make-up and diversity of our nation. But, more important, such policy is a part of national aviation policy. This, in turn, is a part of national transportation policy which helps unify this country as a nation. I feel that if the government of Alberta were allowed to retain ownership, a serious precedent would be established which could lead to other provincial take-overs of regional carriers that would result in the balkanization of national aviation and, in turn, national transportation policy.

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
Fifth, I feel that there is no social economic justification for the ownership of PWA by the government of Alberta. It should be the principle of any free enterprise government not to enter into public ownership of any business or industry unless it can be clearly established that there is a social need for government ownership and that such business or industry cannot compete effectively in a free market economy without assistance of public ownership. Pacific Western Airlines has a proven track record that shows it does not need direct government intervention of public ownership. It is probably the only air carrier in Canada recently to have made a profit.
Mr. Speaker, the second matter I wish to discuss is that of shipping subsidies for west coast shipping. Clearly, the events of late should be sufficient proof that active federal support and financial assistance is required. If we are to develop the mid and north coast areas of British Columbia pursuant to the federal government's stated policy of regional and northern economic development, transportation in these areas will have to be aided by direct government intervention. The history and track record of private shippers operating in these areas should be proof enough that the principle of commercial viability is inapplicable. My colleagues, the hon. member for Coast Chil-cotin (Mr. Pearsall), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) have during the past year and a half forcefully made this point.
It is, then, gratifying to hear the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, stating that if such a case is made, federal financial assistance and support should follow. He said:
Our view is that the role of the government should vary according to the nature of the services and region concerned. Those services which are well developed and mature should be operated on a commercially viable basis within a general policy and regulatory framework provided by the government. Hence, in those cases where there is effective competition, rates and services should be determined largely through the forces of the marketplace. Yet in other regions or in other parts of the transportation system where services are required in the national or regional interest, but cannot achieve commercial viability or the required degree of technological development, the federal government is prepared to provide active support and financial assistance.
Related to this issue of shipping subsidies is the matter of the maintenance of a work force at the port of Prince Rupert. Since the cessation of Northland operations, the work available to the longshoremen at the port of Prince Rupert has not been sufficient. Recently, the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the ILWU presented a joint brief about this matter to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the federal government has committed itself finally to establishing the port of Prince Rupert as another major gateway to the Pacific by building the Fairview dock and indicating that the grain facilities will be expanded, I submit that the federal government should protect its interests in ensuring that there is an adequate work force when the port of Prince Rupert finally comes on stream in the near future.
If there is no adequate work force, this new major gateway to the Pacific would soon have the reputation for chronic labour shortages, and certainly this is not what it needs or deserves. Like the port of Vancouver, the port of Prince

Rupert must be considered a major, integral part of the government's initiative of developing and facilitating western access to the Pacific rim countries.
Mr. Speaker, the third and final issue I wish to comment on is the urban transportation assistance program. When the federal government announced its initiative in this area, it clearly made a commitment to help alleviate the problems of urban transit. The announcement was made jointly by the Minister of Transport and the former minister of state for urban affairs, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). I quote from their joint press release dated August 27, 1976, as follows:
The federal government recognizes the importance of establishing an urban transportation policy which will conserve energy and improve the urban environment through a shift in urban transportation use from private automobiles to public transit facilities. At the same time the government has a commitment to restrain expenditure increases which would arise from substantial new federal programs.
Unquestionably, the federal government should be concerned with restraint; and as of late it has been doing an excellent job. Of equal importance, the government should be actively supporting concrete means that will enable it to achieve its goal of energy conservation. I submit that the urban transportation assistance program is one of these means. In view of the high costs of gasoline and road building, I submit this government should be actively supporting and financially aiding public transportation systems in large metropolitan areas.
Approximately half the population in British Columbia live in the lower mainland. The bulk of them are commuters. The lower mainland, in comparison to other metropolitan areas of comparable size, is faced with a dearth of transportation alternatives. Montreal and Toronto can look to subway and freeway systems which do not exist in the Vancouver area. This need for a lower mainland transportation policy was recognized and became an integral part of the Liveable Regional Plan. This is a blueprint of proposals to manage the growth of greater Vancouver. It was funded by the federal Department of Urban Affairs and carried out by the Greater Vancouver Regional District which is our form of regional government for the municipalities in the lower mainland.
The Liveable Regional Plan proposes a five-part strategy for managing growth in the region. Briefly, they are: First, achieve residential growth targets in each part of the region; second, promote a balance of jobs to population in each part of the region; third, create regional town centres; fourth, protect and develop regional open space; Fifth, provide a transit-orientated transportation system linking residential areas, regional town centres and major work areas. It is proposal No. 5 that I wish to discuss in greater detail. Fully cognizant of the complexity of the transportation issue and the cost, the GVRD has proposed a three-part strategy to move people and goods efFiciently and as cheaply as possible. Firstly, it proposes growth management. Essentially, what this means is to put more housing where the jobs are in order to limit traffic growth and ensure proper planning that will enable de-emphasis on the automobile in favour of public transportation.
March 7, 1977

Second, the GVRD has recommended a number of ideas to make better use of existing programs. For example "Turn Down Traffic" talks about car pooling and staggered work hours. 1 should add that this program was funded by the Department of Urban Affairs and is now being fully implemented. Third, there is a need for new facilities. I am gratified to see that the GVRD rejects costly stop-gap auto bridges and freeways. It estimates that today under 10 per cent of the daily trips in the region are made on public transit. With the expressed desire to increase this to 25 per cent to 30 per cent over 10 years, active and financial support from not just the provincial but also the federal government is mandatory.
The GVRD has proposed: first, light rapid transit; second, North Shore passenger ferries; third, suburban rail from Vancouver on the CPR mainline along Burrard Inlet to Port Moody and Coquitlam; fourth, fast bus; fifth, articulated routes for streetcars or trolley buses; and sixth, improved local bus routes. I submit that the proposal of the GVRD emphasizes getting the best transportation bargain. It emphasizes minimizing the need for travel by co-ordinating transportation with growth management. As many hon. members of this House have said, this is even more important because the days of abundant and cheap fuel are gone. The federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has accurately painted the future of doubling fuel prices and Canada as an energyimporting nation. These are compelling reasons for the federal government to be the leader in causing a turnabout in stressing efficiency and public transit. Lately the government of British Columbia appears to be in a position to respond to the GVRD and the people. Certainly the federal government should be in a position to respond as well.
Related to this matter of urban transportation assistance is a problem which adversely affects the people of my riding and that of my neighbour, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt). The city of Vancouver has designated a number of city streets in our ridings as truck routes. To name a few, they are Powell Street, East Hastings, McGill and Kingsway. Heavy trucks use these streets, and the result has been an environmental problem of noise pollution and constant danger to life, especially to small children. Since the opening of the National Harbours Board container facility, Vanterm, there has been an ever-steady increase in^the amount of truck traffic on these designated truck routes. Unquestionably, I submit, Vanterm has compounded the problem. With respect to a solution, I have suggested the use of the Grandview cut as the major east-west truck route. Support for this has come from the city of Vancouver. The reason I raise this matter is that the urban transportation assistance program could be used as a source of funds for this proposal.
In conclusion, I again want to congratulate the government and the Minister of Transport for the initiative in this legislation. The re-establishment of policy authority in the Minister of Transport is unquestionably the right move.
Adjournment Motion


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of considerable gratification to me that this bill should be brought forward at this time because it gives me an opportunity to enlarge on some matters upon which I have been trying to have dealings with the minister but I have not been very successful. I will not continue the theme of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) who was congratulating the minister. I merely congratulate the minister on his timing.
Fundamental to a complete understanding of the attitude of the members of my party toward this legislation is an understanding of our attitude toward the minister who introduced Bill C-33 and the degree of credibility he can command in the House on this issue. We all remember the famous statement which came from the benches opposite, not very far from where the minister sits, to the effect that the Department of Transport was in a mess. That goes without saying. This bill is an attempt, presumably, to put the department in some order.
When we consider the manner in which this minister has treated the House within the last week, I think we have some idea of the degree to which he can command our support of the matters he raises. We need only cast our minds back to last week when in the course of some 48 hours the minister made two fundamental statements outside the House touching on the transportation systems of this country.
One announcement dealt with passenger services. He announced a complete revamping of passenger services. The second announcement dealt with the St. Lawrence Seaway in two respects. The first dealt with the financing of the Seaway and the second with tolls. Both these announcements were made outside the House and the minister deprived members of this House of an opportunity to question him on these initiatives. Hearing comments from the official opposition and other parties in this House on these initiatives is from my point of view fundamental to the proper working of the House. The minister has shown disdain and scorn for this House. It is, therefore, very difficult for us to take seriously the matters he brings forward.
Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if I could call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)-Consumer Affairs-Position of CMHC on use of aluminum wiring in dwellings; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fras-
3722

March 7, 1977
Veterans Affairs
er)-Labour Conditions-Statement of minister on government's accommodation of labour-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is agreed that we proceed with notice of motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and that all other motions before that be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, just so that the practice of this House shall not be derogated from, it must be clearly understood that notwithstanding this proposal which may come from the parliamentary secretary and which is accepted by someone on behalf of the opposition, all those items affected stand at the request of the government, because that is traditional and it is a practice of this House that any deferment is at the request of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give serious consideration to a reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to examine and review all aspects of veterans affairs in relation to (a) the services program (b) war veterans allowances (c) the Civilian War Allowances Act (d) supplementary financial assistance on the basis of need (e) hospitalization and medicare assistance, with particular attention to the results of the progress in the transfer of veterans hospitals to other levels of government or agencies (0 educational assistance for veterans and the pensioned children of the deceased veterans (g) specialized services for blind, deaf, paraplegic veterans (h) counselling service (i) reviewing the need for increasing grants and contributions to the army benevolent fund, the Royal Canadian Legion, Canadian Veterans Association of the U.K., Commonwealth Graves Commission, United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea (j) the consideration of grants to other veterans' organizations in Canada (k) examining the need fof improvements under the Pensions
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
Act, with particular reference to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to provide pensions for widows whose deceased husbands were receiving 48 per cent or less (I) the Pension Commission (m) the Pensions Review Board (n) the Bureau of Pensions Advocate (o) assessing the progress under the special housing program for veterans (p) considering the need for increases in funding towards the Last Post fund and assistance for funerals, burials and headstones (q) reviewing the P.W. Compensation Act and considering amendments to include First World War veterans, escapees and evaders (r) other matters, pertinent to Canada's obligation to its veterans.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is fortunate that our rules provide an opportunity during private members' hour to focus attention on matters which, unfortunately, do not seem to achieve national attention even though the veterans community consists of approximately two million of our population, comprising some 885,000 veterans plus their dependants. They deserve a hearing. Some hon. members are concerned about the veterans of this country. But there are some hard facts to be known, and I think it is time to put them in their proper perspective.
Even though we who hold a particular interest for veterans keep repeating to ourselves that we have the best veterans' legislation in the world, I suggest, that we do not have it. If we did have it we would not be in the embarrassing position, in 1977, some 58 years after World War I, 31 years after World War II and 20 years after the Korean conflict, of not having provided for a veterans' charter which serves the veteran and his dependants, and we should not face the many glaring inequities still existing in our veterans' legislation.
I want to put some further glaring examples on record. Hon. members will not be surprised when I point out, again, the discrimination existing under the Pension Act whereby widows of veterans who died with a disability pension of less than 48 per cent are discarded by the department and thrown into the hands of provincial welfare systems unless the death was attributable to the pensionable condition. Of the 85,724 married pensioners, 68,526 are between the 5 per cent and 45 per cent category, and while many of them may have other income which might preclude the need, there must be a sizeable proportion of widows who are forsaken by the government and must rely on the welfare program. This is an embarrassment to us all.
The inclusion of these widows for pension was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs arising out of the Hermann report on the need to compensate prisoners of war. Naturally, this government turned it down with the excuse that they could not afford to pay the $40 million or $50 million it would cost. I will try to point out the weaknesses still existing in the legislation and explain the discrepancies existing in that the department cannot seem to recognize the lack of equality as between two pieces of legislation.
Under the Pension Act a married veteran receiving a 48 per cent disability pension, with no children, receives $347.88. On his death, his wife receives $417.47, or some $70 more, which is fair and equitable. But the widow of a veteran who was receiving 47 per cent, or just $34.78 less, receives nothing unless-and I repeat-the death was attributable to his pensionable condition.
March 7, 1977

On the other hand, let us look at the war veteran's allowance recipient. If married, he receives $392.49 minimum, or $462.49 on a needs basis. If he or his wife can work, he is entitled to casual earnings of $188 per month, for a total of $580.49. On his death, the widow of the war veteran's allowance recipient is entitled to draw the married rate for one year. She then reverts to the single rate of either $270.16, or $355.16, if she can earn under the casual earnings provision.
I think, too, that we ought to look into the discrepancies which arise form relating disability pensions to war veterans' allowances. These confirm the need for a comprehensive review of the entire question. Let us consider the benefits to be derived under both sides of the veterans' charter. I hope hon. members are paying attention and will recognize the existence of obvious discrepancies. I ask hon. members to consider the following examples and compare benefits, taking into account that one of the benefits is for disability while the allowances are designed for a pre-aging condition.
A single recipient under WVA receives an entitlement of $230.16 which is indexed quarterly. On the basis of need he may be eligible for a further $40 per month, for a total of $270.16. The single disability pensioner, on the same basis, must have a disability of 60 per cent to be eligible for that amount. I think hon. members agree that a 60 per cent disability is pretty serious. Further, if the WVA recipient can work, he can earn $125 per month, to give him a maximum of $355.16. In order to reach that pension level the disability pensioner must have a 60 per cent disability.
I come now to the case of a married war veteran's allowance recipient with no children. His basic allowance is $392.49, and in the case of need he can be eligible for a further $70, for a total of $462.49. The disability pensioner must have a disability of at least 70 per cent to qualify for that amount. If the married WVA recipient can earn a partial living, he is eligible for casual earnings of $188 per month, giving him the maximum earnings of $580.49. This compares with the allowance of a pensioner with an 85 per cent disability.
To take the matter one step further, a married veteran with two children under WVA can reach a maximum earnings figure of $701.27, made up of the basic $392.49 plus $120.78 for two children up to the age of 25 if they are in university or other institution of learning, and $188 in casual earnings. To be entitled to the same amount a disability pensioner must have a disability of 85 per cent.
In addition, there is another variation with regard to drug care. The war veteran's allowance recipient has access to all the drugs he requires, yet the disability pensioner can only qualify for the drugs relating to his pensionable condition. It should be obvious that these discrepancies justify the presentation of my motion, and I ask for unanimous consent to refer the whole veterans' charter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
On the other hand, any veteran who qualifies for a disability pension of 5 per cent, which would give him the meagre pension of $27.82, single, or $34.78 married, is eligible to apply for war veteran's allowance. It should be obvious that
Veterans Affairs
disability pensioners who earn no other income could qualify for a war veteran's allowance far above their present pension. Some of our veterans are not aware of this situation; consequently, they are losing many dollars of income for which they could qualify, and they could perhaps protect their wives after their death since widows of recipients of war veteran's allowance are eligible for allowances.
Statistics show that some 68,524 veterans between the 5 per cent and 45 per cent categories may be losing many dollars of income, to say nothing of the loss of protection for their wives who cared for them through their suffering, or for the widows of veterans. But these inequities are not recognized by the "secret societies" of the government, the experts on veterans affairs. I am referring, for example, to the group known as the management by objectives committee, the organizational effectiveness group and the management advisory services group. It is the job of such organizations to redefine, to keep a watch on legislation affecting veterans and make sure that it is to the benefit of our veterans.
While we are talking about discrimination against widows, I am wondering about the concerns of the status of women council. What are they doing? Clearly, they are not aware of this discrepancy, which only emphasizes the fact of, diminishing concern for the veterans of our country and their widows. I am thinking of veterans or widows with meagre pensions, with pensions based on 48 per cent of disability.
Another matter that indicates that changing conditions require constant attention is the basic rate of pension. In 1972 the rate was finally established relative to the average wage of five public service groups. It has now become obvious, because of an increase in the wages of the people in the public service, that the veteran has fallen considerably behind and that amending legislation is necessary to correct this variance. This question was brought to the attention of the minister forcibly when the Hong Kong veterans wrote pointing out the salary levels of the five categories of public servants on which the 1972 rates were based. They gave the list of the composite group of public service employees. The average earnings were $8,501. Applying the 1976 income tax exemption for a single person, the taxable income was $6,161.
Federal and Ontario income tax on this amount, based on 1976 rates, will be $1,285, leaving a net income of $7,216. They point out, further, that the 1977 annual basic pension rate for a 100 per cent single pensioner is $6,679. Therefore, the pensioner is now behind his counterpart by $536.56 or $44.72 a month.
Another matter which indicates that changing conditions require attention is the basic rate of pension. That change is with regard to indexing of WVA benefits for those over 65 years of age. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I have brought this utter confusion to the attention of the House. When the veteran is over 65 years of age and his pension is indexed and at the same time his WVA
80010-29'/2

March 7, 1977
Veterans Affairs
is indexed, he loses the war veterans' allowance indexing in favour of the old age security.
Disability pensioners are also losing out on income as a result of the 5 per cent graduation in classes of pension. For example, under one classification pensioners assessed at 18 per cent to 22 per cent are all paid at the 20 per cent rate. Therefore, pensioners at 18 per cent get the same amount as their comrades at 22 per cent. The same situation exists in the other classes. This indicates an inequality which should be reviewed.
While legislation has been introduced to allow shortening of time of qualification of emigrants from five to three years, as pointed out by my colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), under the new old age security rules, a former resident who had 20 years prior legal service after age 18 would be entitled to receive a full pension abroad without returning to Canada. Even though it does not apply in some cases, is there any reason why a war veteran who has to come back to Canada for 365 days to qualify should not be given the same preference? Changes should be made to assist the World War I veteran.
There is another item of discrimination. Male veterans must be 60 years of age in order to qualify for war veterans allowance while female veterans can qualify at age 55. This, too, should be reviewed and taken into consideration by the committee in order to bring our veterans' charter in line with changing conditions and to recognize the service.
While we who sat on the veterans affairs committee can stick out our chests and boast about the fact that we were able to get compensation for veterans who were prisoners or war, there are many factors that have come to our attention since and which were not included in the act. We either forgot or ignored World War I veterans who were prisoners of war. Even though representation was made, we did not take into consideration the escapee or invader, some of whom suffered more than those who were captured. We failed to recognize the veteran who was incarcerated for only three months. A person must have been incarcerated for at least three months before he can qualify. We failed to recognize that disability pensioners at 90 per cent, who qualified under the prisoners of war compensation act for the largest amount or 20 per cent, loses out by 10 per cent because of the maximum 100 per cent section in the act.
Another main concern of veterans across the country is as a result of the government's decision in 1963 to transfer hospitals to non-departmental agencies. While the principle may have been logical, the results on a good number of occasions leave much to be desired. I can substantiate this statement since I visited, with members of the caucus committee on veterans affairs, some of the hospitals already transferred. Whoever decided on this policy-and I do not quarrel with the decision made in 1963-and promised priority care and that domiciliary care and chronic case beds would be available on a priority basis, as well as active care, was less than capable in projecting the needs of veterans as they grow older and require extended care, more so in 1977 than ever before.

This is borne out by the fact that in the hospitals transferred, waiting time for veterans is up to two years for a bed. A prime example of this lack of attention is the transfer of the Veterans Pavilion in Victoria to the Jubilee Hospital. As a result of the protests by concerned veterans associations in Victoria, several visits were made by the minister and his staff to hear the complaints of those who care. I need do no more than give a comment on a report by the department as to the availability of domiciliary and chronic care beds made just three months ago on November 10, 1976, referring to waiting lists. In Saint John, New Brunswick, there is apparently a great shortage of beds. It is impossible to estimate the waiting time. In Vancouver and Victoria applicants are on a points system, as well as having to wait for a vacancy. The applicant with the lowest points could in some cases wait forever. Is this the way to look after our veterans?
Apart from neglect of Canada's commitment to veterans, the government gave as the reasons for the transfers the fact that they could not keep doctors because active care is not required. This I quarrel with because according to people I have talked to there are enough retired dedicated medical doctors who will care for their comrades. In spite of this, the government is handing over to the provinces not only hundreds of millions of dollars in buildings and equipment but hundreds of acres of valuable land. In addition, they are paying out more millions of dollars to the provinces to provide the care and the beds. Surely, the least a veteran can expect is fulfilment of the commitment made to him by those who asked him many years ago to serve his country. I repeat that these facts emphasize the need for a complete review by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs before any further transfers of hospital beds are made. In fact, this should be done immediately.
I now wish to deal with the housing legislation. With the approach of the March 31, 1977, deadline for additional loans under the Veterans Land Act, I think it is worth while pointing out that we can now say, "We told them so." I was happy to read in the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs that as a result of the opposition forcing the government to extend the act for one year, approval of 1,291 new small holding establishments and 13 new farm establishments was made. Additional loans were made to 1,905 veterans already settled under the act, and a total of 533 veterans were able to build new homes, for a total expenditure of $34 million.
Not only can we say, "We told them so", but we were able to prove the supposed experts wrong, those supposed experts who wrote columns trying to convince the citizenry that they were right, when they did not know what they were talking about. In this connection, I commend Canadian Press for having told our story impartially when we fought and won the battle for some 3,742 veterans, but I am also happy to condemn the few to whom I referred beforehand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may only continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
March 7, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Marshall: The government was also forced to introduce a new housing program which could be improved by a review by the committee. In this regard I refer to the need to expand the present program to include home repairs, similar to the residential rehabilitation assistance program now in existence, whereby grants of $3,750 can be directed to those on low and fixed incomes of $6,000 or less. In spite of the fact that I keep getting the answer that these grants are applicable to all Canadians, the loans are restricted to areas designated by the provinces, which leaves many veterans out and denies them the opportunity to take advantage of the program, which, again, shows lack of interest in the needs of veterans.
The utter absurdity of the phasing out of the act is borne out by the fact that it was not costing the taxpayer money. It is another example of the failure of Canada's commitment to the veterans, along with the further step by the government to phase out the department. Repayment of principal amounted to $48.5 million dollars, with interest received of some $28 million. I will always hold glory in the fact that our motion, which extended the act, served 3,742 veterans who otherwise would have been left out.
While time does not permit me to cover the remainder of the 17 points in my motion, may I group many of them by pointing out that the government should take a hard look, as a result of inflation, at increasing funding for funerals, burials and headstones under The Last Post fund and other benevolent funds. It is obvious, when one reads the financial statements of the benevolent fund that while the veteran population is decreasing, expenditures are increasing; due, of course, to inflation. When one examines the estimates for this year, it is evident that grants and contributions to the army benevolent fund, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Veterans Association of the U.K., and the Commonwealth Graves Commission, should be increased. Recognition should also be considered for veterans organizations which are serving the veteran population; I mention in particular War Amputations of Canada which for many years has led efforts to provide improved prosthetic devices for veteran amputees.
1 thank hon. members for extending the time available to me. I could go on for many more minutes. I only hope I have made some impression on the members on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and others. I understand there are some 50 veterans still sitting in this House, and they should be proud that the legislation is to be reviewed at the earliest opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion which has been proposed. It is broad enough in its terms to enable us to discuss a number of subjects, and this afternoon I wish to mention two or three which are of particular interest to me. The first concerns administration of the hospitals which remain the responsibility
Veterans Affairs
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in particular, the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital in my riding. The present situation is causing anxiety among both the veterans who work at this hospital and the veterans who are patients there. Their concern arises at the prospect of impending transfer of responsibility to the provincial government in connection with which discussions have been going on for some time.
I have placed many questions on the order paper on this subject and have received a variety of answers. It seems that another hospital presently in the hands of the department in the province of Quebec, the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, was being turned over to the provincial authority. In fact, a recent answer says there is an agreement in principle that the Queen Mary Hospital in Montreal will be transferred, though negotiations in connection with the transfer have not yet been completed. Since then there has, of course, been a change in the provincial government and it now seems as if this particular transfer is not to take place, at least in the foreseeable future.
The problem in connection with the Ste. Anne hospital is the continuing uncertainty. Employees are worried about their security. They are concerned about their benefits. Moreover, the situation with regard to the patients themselves is not clear. Not all the patients are the responsibility of the federal government. According to an answer to a question of mine on the order paper, there are 845 patients of whom approximately one-third are considered to be a federal responsibility. The other two-thirds, although they may be veterans, are concerned about what might happen to them if the hospital is transferred.
At Senneville Lodge, which is part of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Hospital, there are 136 patients at the present time. The lodge is a very old building. It was the intention of the federal government to construct a new building, and some $6 million has been allocated for that purpose. It was assumed that if the Ste. Anne veterans' hospital was transferred to the province, along with it might go a lump sum to cover the construction of the new facilities. Nevertheless, because of the delay and the lack of decision nothing has happened and no construction is planned. In fact, at the present time the situation is completely dormant. I therefore propose, and will continue to suggest, that the Department of Veterans Affairs make up its mind by stating there will be no further discussion on the subject for a period of not less than three years or, better still, five years, during which time normal responsibility would be exercised. This would put an end to the immediate anxiety of patients and employees.
In the department itself, the question of morale among the staff is one which must be considered. The recent announcement that many of the branches of the department would be transferred en bloc to Prince Edward Island met with anything but a favourable reaction among employees. A release issued by employees of the department gives expression to this concern and draws attention to the disruption of family life, the main reason given by the overwhelming majority of departmental employees for rejecting the transfer to Charlottetown.

March 7, 1977
Veterans Affairs
According to answers given by employees of the department responding to a Public Service Alliance circular, many members of the veterans affairs component last November rejected the idea of a transfer by some 90 per cent; only 5 per cent favoured the move, and the remainder claimed they were undecided at that time because of lack of information as to the government's intentions. This is understandable. Apparently, according to an announcement by the department, relocation will not take place until 1980 or early 1981, and employees will not be required to consider their decision to relocate until at least another three years. Therefore we have a situation where the employees will not be spoken to until the end of the current year, and they are going to be discussing something which will not happen for at least another three years.
Although I fully support the principle of decentralization, I find it strange that the department should proceed in this manner, leaving everyone so uneasy. Surely if we are going to decentralize the department, the first thing to do is to discuss it with the employees in order to find out precisely what the effect is going to be, to familiarize them with the intentions of the department concerning the problems everyone will have, and then, after all these decisions have been made on location, the cost of relocation and so on, make the announcement. This seems to me to be the logical way to proceed. It is difficult for me to understand why there has to be such a complicated procedure as to talk about three years hence, thus leaving everyone so uneasy.
I placed four questions on this subject on the order paper on October 29 last, questions Nos. 859, 862, 863 and 865, and they are still there today. 1 find it strange that the department is unable to answer the first of these, for example, which inquires how many square feet of office space is presently occupied by these various departments which are intending to move. 1 then asked whether any of the space is rented and, if so, what were the terms of the lease and the termination date. 1 would have assumed that a simple question, asking the Department of Veterans Affairs how much space it was using, whether it leased the space and what were the terms of the lease, covers information that could have been obtained within a matter of a few days at most, and the question answered probably within two or three weeks. However, 1 reiterate that on October 29 the question was put on the order paper and, some five months later, it is still on the order paper. No wonder there is some dismay on the part of the employees.
If I can go back to the release to the employees of the Veterans Affairs Department, it even reiterates that only about half of my questions have been answered, and that most of the responses provided by the Veterans Affairs Department have been uninformative. These questions are put on the order paper for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that information will be made public. In this case the employees themselves would have had a better idea of precisely what is involved in the move. Obviously many of these employees are now well established in Ottawa. Many have purchased houses and have mortgage obligations and so on. Many have wives working in

Ottawa. They have children going to school in Ottawa. Many employees in the department are French speaking employees. Their children go to French language schools. They are asking what is going to happen to them when they go to Charlottetown. Are there going to be school facilities in the French language in Charlottetown? These are normal questions that one would think would be answered prior to announcing any move.
Again quoting the press release in the employees' newspaper:
Mr. MacDonald admitted, however, his department has not analyzed the implications of relocation on DVA staff and no employee assistance policy has been adopted.
I think that is a dreadful admission, and I am sorely disappointed that it has been made by a minister of our own government.
When we are discussing language, some interesting things come from questions. In the whole of the DVA in 1975 there were 122 employees whose mother tongue was English. In 1976 the number had increased to 211, or an additional 89 employees. French bilinguals increased from 732 in 1975 to 786 in 1976, or 54 additional employees. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this information was given in answer to two questions of mine, Nos. 856 and 1,460 in this session of parliament.
This information raises some interesting questions concerning the attitude of the department toward blingualism. In the national capital region, 39 whose mother tongue is English were bilingual; in 1976 that number had increased to 87, a plus of 48, while those of French mother tongue diminished from 180 in 1975 to 165 in 1976. Note that unilingual employees, French and English, have dropped by 70; and bilingual employees have increased by 34, leaving a reduction in staff of 36 employees. Yet the total of employees in 1975 compared with 1976 shows a decrease of only six employees. In other words, I am even questioning here the arithmetic of the department.
Worthy of note is the fact that the number of bilingual employees has increased from 39 in 1975 to 87 in 1976. This does not mean that they are bilingual in the true sense of the word but probably that they meet the requirements of the department. There are examples where employees have spent a number of months at language school and since they have been in the department have not spoken a word of French. This, of course, is one of the problems all departments are facing these days. In a question answered only last week I suggested that the government should look at the effect on second generation children in a family when there has been an encouragement to bilingualism, we find the situation where the Francophone bilingual tends to become more Anglophone, and the probability is that his children will tend to be more English than French.
In other words, whereas the teaching of French to an Anglophone-in my opinion, sometimes a rather futile exercise in the public service though certainly a very expensive exercise-will not in any way destroy the capability of that family to speak their mother tongue, English, the chances are that the
March 7, 1977

teaching of English in a Francophone family will encourage its descendants to speak the other language, the language most often used in this capital of Ottawa, namely, English.
What we have to face is the fact that the more often used bilingual in the public service, who frankly is the Francophone, is being torn away from his culture by this encouragement toward bilingualism; and I have suggested that the easiest way to handle this is to hire more Francophones at different levels in the public service.
I have brought out these points, Mr. Speaker, because even the Royal Canadian Legion reacted to this announcement of the DVA move. Their concern was efficiency. They support the principle of decentralization, as we all do, but they felt, as I feel, that there have been too many indications that this department has a kind of knee jerk reaction-there is lack of planning, there is no evidence that the move has been planned in advance, there is no evidence that the effects of the lengthy, drawn out discussions concerning transfer of hospitals in the province of Quebec have been adequately considered. The result is low morale among the employees, a situation which, in my opinion, should be corrected by a full investigation.
The motion proposed by the hon. member is complex and not one which in its entirety I would be willing to support. But the principle of looking into the Department of Veterans Affairs I support 100 per cent.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend most warmly the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St.Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for having put down the motion that we are discussing this afternoon. He indicated it contains some 17 points, so even he was not able to deal with all of them. I certainly will not try to do that either, particularly in view of the fact that this is a private members' hour and time is our enemy.
I wish to speak about three or four subjects mentioned in the motion, on all of which the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe touched. Before I do so may I say that I welcome the intervention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). In particular I am glad that he raised the question of the proposal to move the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island. I think many of us share his view that we favour the principle of decentralization of government departments but we insist that each case should be looked at on its merits.
The Department of Veterans Affairs exists for the purpose of providing service to our veterans. Some of us are not sure that that angle has been completely looked into in planning for this move. In view of the fact that nothing is going to happen for two, three or four years, I hope the considerations raised today by the hon. member for Vaudreuil will be looked at by the department and the government. I join with the hon. member in expressing regret that there was so little consultation-indeed practically none-in advance of the announcement either with the employees of the department or with the
Veterans Affairs
various units that make up the Department of Veterans Affairs. I could stay on that subject, but I would rather underline a few other points mentioned in the motion which were discussed by the hon. member who put this motion before us this afternoon.
At the top of the list I mention the need to do something about what we all know as the 48 per cent rule. In my view, for the law to continue to deny to the widows of veterans, where a veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, a pension as of right, is most unfair. The view that there should be pro rata pensions for those widows has been put forward officially four, five or six times to my knowledge. It was in the report of the Woods Commission a number of years ago, and again in the report of the commission headed by Dr. Hermann on the question of prisoners of war. To my knowledge the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs two, three or four times recommended the implementation of Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods' recommendation or the recommendation made by Dr. Hermann. The idea is not just one that some of us in opposition put forward. It has been around for a long time. I think it is fair to say that the evidence will bear out when we discussed this matter in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that the officials were ready to comment on it; so it is obvious they have thought about it as well. I plead that it not be allowed to drag on much longer.
Another issue mentioned by the hon. member who proposed this motion is compensation for prisoners of war. We did well a few years ago when we provided compensation for Hong Kong prisoners of war, and again a year or so ago when we improved that compensation and established pensions for those who were prisoners of war in Europe.
One might raise some question about whether the amounts are adequate, but the main deficiencies are those already mentioned by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The first is the failure to include prisoners of war from World War I, and I hope we get around to that before they are all dead. There cannot be many left. To try to explain to them that somehow there was a difference, just does not wash.
Then there is the problem of the escapees and evaders. This was covered in the report the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs made to the House after studying the Hermann report. I regret that when the government brought in the legislation these items were left out. They were not forgotten; it was a case of deliberately leaving them out. Like the sponsor of this motion, I think this matter should be dealt with without further delay.
I underscore very heavily the plea made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe about the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension. It took 40 or 50 years of activity in parliament to get that rate back to what it was when it was first established in the 1920's, namely, a rate that bore some relationship to income in the Public Service of Canada. In 1972 we established that the rate of the 100 per cent war disability pension was to be the equal of the average income of five selected categories in the public service. They are low categories in terms of wages, but at any rate five were selected

March 7, 1977
Veterans Affairs
and their average, taking income tax into account, was established as the basis of the 100 per cent disability pension in 1972.
That decision was made on the basis of a report from a very important tripartite committee which consisted of representatives of veterans' organizations for one part, the Department of Veterans Affairs for another, and the Canadian Pension Commission for the third. When that tripartite committee recommended that the 100 per cent disability pension be established at the rate 1 have indicated, the composite average, it also recommended it continue to be tied to that average. We supported that, and recommended that as the wages of those five groups in the public service went up, the 100 per cent disability should go up by the same amount. I was elated when we got that recommendation from the tripartite committee, and I was elated when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs supported it.
I can think of another instance-although 1 do not want to tread on any toes in these few minutes-where we have used the composite industrial index instead of the cost of living index, but in this case the government did not accept either the recommendation of the tripartite committee or of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Instead of saying that the 100 per cent rate would remain whatever the level was for that composite group, it said we would start with an absolute sum for 1972 and after that escalate only by the rise in the cost of living index or the consumer price index. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has already put the figures on the record, but the fact of the matter is that in 1977 the 100 per cent rate, which was the equivalent of the composite rate in 1972, is $536.56 per year, or $44.72 per month behind the composite rate of those five groups in the public service. This is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. It took nearly 50 years to get back to the original decision of the 1920's. Some of us were afraid that, because of attaching it to the CPI rather than the composite index of those five groups, this would happen. It has happened sooner, however, and gone further than we feared. I suggest that needs to be corrected. But since this is private members' hour, and one of the sins opposition members do not indulge in is to talk till six o'clock. I must wind these remarks to a close.
I want to support the idea that a particular area for overhaul is the War Veterans Allowance Act. I could go into this in some detail, but 1 think I shall make my point by citing a case that is in my mind at the moment because of a letter I received a few days ago. It will demonstrate how unfair this situation can become. I received this letter last week from a woman in the province of New Brunswick, the wife of a veteran who had served six years in World War II. At the end of the war he was invalided home, and he has been in poor health ever since, indeed for more than 30 years. He has been in and out of hospital and he has had all kinds of treatment, but even so the maximum disability pension he has been able to get is only 15 per cent. That being the case, he was entitled to the war veterans allowance, so he got it. When he was 65,

he became entitled to old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. These amounts plus his 15 per cent disability pension have reduced the amount he receives as a war veterans allowance, so that his total is not above the ceiling that is allowed under the War Veterans Allowance Act for a married veteran.
Fine, so far so good. But the wife writes to me and says that she will be 60 in a few weeks and she has been told that she will then have to apply for the spouse's allowance. That is true. The law does not say she must apply, but the law says that if she does not apply for the spouse's allowance she will be treated as if she is getting it and the war veterans allowance will be cut off. She will be treated by the War Veterans Allowance Board as though she had applied for the spouses' allowance. So she applies for the spouse's allowance, the war veterans allowance is cut off. So there is no change; the same number of dollars will be coming into the home.of this veteran of World War II and his wife.
But, she says to me, having seen certain things in the paper, what happens if her husband dies-his health is very poor- before she reaches 65? She is told she will lose everything. That is true. If he dies before she reaches 65, his old age security is dropped, his guaranteed income supplement is dropped, his 15 per cent disability pension dies with him because it is less than 48 per cent, and her spouse's allowance will be dropped because she is no longer a spouse but a widow.
The only thing I could say to her by way of hope was that in that circumstances, of course, she would be able to reapply for the allowance for a widow under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Nevertheless, she faces that prospect, and it is one, I suppose, that will probably happen, knowing her age and his health. What he is now getting will all drop because of the means test on the war veterans allowance and because of the marital test or the spouse's allowance.
Surely we can do better for a veteran who saw six years' service in World War II and who has suffered so much in the 30-odd years since then. Surely we can do a lot better for his wife and potential widow.
To do these things, the various pieces of legislation we spoke about need to be reconsidered and, in addition to what we should do about the Pension Act, the 48 per cent rule, the prisoners of war and so on, we now need a thorough overhaul of the War Veterans Allowance Act to make it come much closer to a guaranteed annual income for all our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on the motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). 1 listened to him with interest, and 1 read his motion with interest as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. 1 am concerned, as are all of us, about the veterans of this country. The hon. member spoke about us who hold a particular interest in veterans. I am not sure whom he includes in that "us", but I can assure you that we on this side of the House are and have
March 7, 1977

been very concerned for those who have given a part of their lives for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andres:: I sometimes see some inconsistencies in what some hon. members say and in some of their reactions. As I read the motion I see that each of the 17 items referred to is something that we are all concerned about, and 1 commend the hon. member for bringing these points forward. However, to ask that all these items be sent to committee for a review, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, is not practical. Many of these veterans would be dead before we got through reviewing all those items. I have seen some of the stalling by opposition members in the committee and I can imagine how long it would take before we got through such a review, so 1 begin to wonder and question their sincerity. Then they talk about the sins that are often committed in the House by members talking out a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Andres: Apparently today the very first sin was committed when the hon. member who put forward the motion went beyond his allotted time, with the permission of the House-


An hon. Member:: You can't question that.


William Andres: -and rightly so, because the motion was worded in such a way that I am convinced many members on this side of the House were not exactly sure what was meant by the motion. That is the problem.


Mr. Alexander:: You may not know, but we on this side know.


William Andres: I am not sure how far the hon. member over there can see when he talks about members on this side, but I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House have always been very concerned about the veterans. We have taken all these items under consideration and have dealt with them and will be dealing with them in due course and as the need arises.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let's have a vote for the veterans.


William Andres: Hon. members are asking for a vote. I am not convinced that is what they want. If I were convinced they wanted a vote, I would allow them that. 1 am convinced that they themselves wanted to bring this matter to public attention and then wanted to talk the motion out because they do not want to go any further with it.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on because I have some pertinent points to make on each item, but hon. members opposite have not even given me the courtesy of sufficient time to speak on this. May I call it six o'clock?
National Transportation Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is half a minute still to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the Minister of Transport) that Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I called it five o'clock I was saying that to understand our attitude toward this bill and the minister who presented it, we have to go back to last week and have a closer look at the minister's performance in Vancouver and here in Ottawa at a press conference he held across the street.
[ Translation]
Last Wednesday several colleagues of my party and other members of the House rose to complain against the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) towards the House. We expressed resentment about the characteristic arrogance, scorn and contempt shown by the minister and his cabinet colleagues. We pointed out that the minister had not deemed advisable during the previous 48 hours to disclose the substance of two important measures on transport in Canada, thus preventing the members of the House from commenting on those policy changes and still more important from asking the minister why he had given those new instructions on an essential procedure to the efficient operation of Parliament. This attitude of the minister which, as I said, is characteristic of the whole government dealings, cast a slur on the Parliament of Canada. The more respect and power of parliament are reduced, the less our proceedings are efficient. The power
3730

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
of government is not questioned, but under its mandate it must seek the advice of parliament in all important cases. By avoiding that essential procedure, the government runs the risk of reducing the prestige of such an institution in the eyes of the public and the provincial governments. And it is precisely in that area that this government is enormously responsible for what happened in the province of Quebec during the election of last November 15. Because of the attitude of the present federal government, Quebec voters say, the parliamentary and democratic process no longer operates at the federal level and that is why we no longer trust the Liberal party which, through its actions, has practically demolished the parliamentary institution. Therefore, Quebecers say, we shall support the PQ, which promises efficient, democratic and consultative government.
The government of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) needs no longer look for scapegoats like the CBC, for instance, or the English-speaking community of Ontario, to explain its declining popularity throughout the country and in the province of Quebec particularly. The responsibility for that belongs to the Liberals, who have weakened the parliament of Canada to such an extent that the Canadian people have lost all confidence in it and gives it little credibility.

That is the reason, Mr. Speaker. It explains-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Are you quoting from a newspaper?


Donald W. Munro: We are getting more arrogance all the time.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member is quoting from an article, does he know the name of the article? Is he speaking on behalf of his party in support of the Parti Quebecois?


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


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member raised a point of order. I suggest he did not. Probably he did not understand my French, for which I am sorry. I have tried to explain my party's attitude to the minister and this bill.
Actually I am glad of the timing of this debate since it enables me to speak about certain things which concern me greatly. One of them is the urgent necessity for radar at Victoria international airport. I was not at all satisfied with the minister's reply to my questions on this subject. I asked two questions, on January 31 and again on February 16. One may read the minister's reply as reported on page 3097 of Hansard for February 16. Before I read the minister's answer perhaps I should explain what happened. On January 21 I took scheduled flight 266 from Victoria to Vancouver. An aircraft, not reported to the pilots of the scheduled airliner, almost collided with our aircraft. But for our pilot's evasive action, an accident would have happened. As I say, thanks to the speedy action of the captain of my particular aircraft, we avoided an

accident. In the face of this the minister had the gall to tell me that he had seen the report and I had grossly exaggerated what had happened. Frankly, I am not sure the minister saw the report. The report I hold in my hand mentions the imminence of a collision and says that if the captain had not taken evasive action the aircraft would have collided.
I had to accept the minister's explanation in the House. It was not a good explanation. I made inquiries, wanting to know what sort of report the minister had read, and was told by a variety of people that, since there had been no request for an inquiry, the incident was not considered as important. And that was the tone of the minister. I did not like his attempt to put me down, by suggesting it was not a serious incident. Perhaps he would like another by-election in Esquimalt-Saanich. I am not ready for that yet. At any rate, the minister's party would stand no chance of winning.
One part of the pilot's report refers to a near miss. I do not know if the minister was aware that another aircraft was in the air at the time. I had evidence of that aircraft's presence, as well. Soon after Air Canada flight 266 took off and had reached 2,000 feet, another aircraft was reported. That was cleared and there was no problem. The pilots of the small aircraft and the commercial airliner, each knew exactly where the other was, and that was fine. When the commercial airliner reached 3,500 feet of altitude, the pilot saw another aircraft, the one I spoke about earlier. We nearly collided with it. As I say, but for the rapid and appropriate evasive action taken by the captain of our aircraft, we would have collided.
I contest the minister's right to say that I grossly exaggerated the facts. The minister has his report, and I have mine. I know where the aircraft were, and I know they nearly collided. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is prepared to table the report he is now waving in his hand.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Why does the hon. member not stick to Bill C-33?


Donald W. Munro: Which deals with
transport.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Right.


Donald W. Munro: I am dealing with transport, air transport. I was speaking about aircraft.


An hon. Member:: You were, as we are aware.


Marcel-Claude Roy: The hon. member made some kind of statement about the Parti Quebecois. We don't know what that has to do with the bill.


Donald W. Munro: I suspect members of the party opposite are trying to eat into my time.


An hon. Member:: Which you like.


Donald W. Munro: No, I do not like it. Talk about the user-pay principle; it should be called, the "user-pray" principle. Anyone who takes off from an airport not
March 7, 1977

equipped with radar should pray. The minister is not spelling his policy properly.
To show you how important Victoria international airport is, let me put some statistics on record. Figures for November, 1976, show that Victoria international airport ranks thirteenth in the scale of total aircraft movements. There were some 13,600 take-offs and landings controlled by the control tower, as compared with some 15,000-odd at Vancouver airport. How many do you imagine there were at Mirabel? I will tell you- just over 3,700. And at Victoria international there is no radar. Would you believe me if I tell you that they use binoculars at Victoria international, to see the aircraft, to determine their height and direction of travel? Mr. Speaker, this is unreal.
Would hon. members like to hear some statistics concerning Gander international airport? In my second question of February 16, I alluded to radar equipement being taken out of Vancouver airport. It is to be taken across the continent to Gander, not across Haro Strait, to where it is badly needed. And how many take-offs and landings do you suppose occurred at Gander last year? The airport ranks fifty-sixth on the list. There were about 1,850 take-offs and landings in Gander, compared with 13,600 at Victoria. Sufely even my friends from Newfoundland would grant us the right to have radar in Victoria.


Mr. McGrath:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Let me point out how traffic at Victoria international airport has grown over the years. For example, in 1971 there were about 105,000 takeoffs and landings from Victoria. By 1975, according to the latest statistics I haved seen, the total had risen to 185,000. In 1971 there were about 135,000 take-offs and landings at Vancouver airport; by 1975 the figure had reached 203,000. Traffic at Ottawa international airport, on the other hand, declined from 219,000 movements in 1971 to 205,000 in 1975. That represents a drop of about 15 per cent. Movements at Victoria international rose from 105,000 to 185,000 in the same period. These figures are ample grounds for the case I have been trying to make in the past few months. I do not like being put down by an arrogant minister.
I received a letter which the minister did not even have the courtesy to sign. He got one of his flunkies, his executive assistant, to sign it. Presumably he wrote the letter. It reads in part:
I wish to assure you that flight safety in this area is not adversely affected by the unavailability of radar equipment. Effective pilot and air traffic control procedures are in use which are designed to give maximum assurance that the control tower staff at Victoria are aware of the position of all aircraft about to enter or operate within their area of responsibility.
This has been given the lie by that incident of January 21.1 am not yet sure whether the minister knows there were two aircraft as well as the commercial aircraft in the air at that time. My reports make it quite clear that there were. If that is not a hairy incident, I would like to know what is. Therefore I
National Transportation Act
feel it is time that I had a sensible, decorous and non-arrogant reply from the minister.
There are a couple of other tables I would like to record. Table 5 is related to the type of engine that is used when there is a distinction being made with regard to jets, turbo-props, and piston driven aircraft. There are itinerant movements, ones that are just going by. They are not the ones taking off and landing.
In the month of November there were some 6,000, of which 585 were jet take-offs and landings, 726 with turbo-props and 5,000 with piston engines. Anyone who has had anything whatsoever to do with flying knows that piston engines still do not travel as fast as jet aircraft. Their manner of getting out of the way or in the way is hampered by their speed.
In the incident to which I referred, it was the turbo driven aircraft that took the evasive action. It was quick to respond. The piston driven aircraft, which some of us, including myself, saw, seemed to be unaware of our presence.


An hon. Member:: Were you scared?


Donald W. Munro: I have had enough flying hours not to be scared. You get some flying hours in and you will understand.
At Gander, by comparison to the 6,480 total that I spoke of, there were only 1,600 of which 880 were jet, 200 turbo prop and 326 piston. This means there is a heavy concentration of piston driven aircraft in that particular area. It suggests to me there is every need for a radar at Victoria international airport. If the minister or his delightful parliamentary secretary, who had the courtesy to address me on one occasion, read this particular issue of Hansard, and want more information, I am quite prepared to give it.
There are two other matters. I am not sure whether time will permit me to deal with both. The first has to do with ferry subsidies. There has been a great deal of talk about the amount of subsidies provided to operate east coast ferries. Admittedly some of these subsidies must be provided constitutionally such as the ferry to Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. That subsidy is one of the terms of confederation with Newfoundland and the rest of Canada. The ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is likewise an interprovincial ferry.
The argument we get from the other side of the House is that subsidies cannot be given in cases that are not interprovincial. If it is from one part of the province to the other part of the province, subsidies cannot be authorized. To that I say poppycock.
The Public Accounts of Canada will bear me out that there have been instances of subsidies granted to ferries, either for construction, operation, or slipways in which they berth at one end or the other of their passages, which operate within a single province. Two grants were made by the ministry to aid ferry vessel construction.
One grant of $3 million was made to the province of Ontario to aid in the construction of vessel and terminals for the
80010-30'/2

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
Tobermory-South Bay Mouth service. Reference to that service can be found in the Public Accounts of Canada 1973, page 26:12. I am not deploring this. I am glad it is there. 1 am happy to say that the design of the ferry operating on that service was perfected by naval designers in my constituency. It is something of which they are proud, and I am sure the people in the area are proud of it too.
The province of Quebec was granted $3 million to aid in the construction of an icebreaker type ferry for use on the St. Lawrence River. Reference to that may be found on the same page of the 1973 Public Accounts of Canada, 26 being Transport and 12 being the page within Transport. This was the ministry's share of a $6 million grant. The remaining $3 million was funded by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Therefore let us have no more of this hogwash from the other side about there being no subsidies available for ferries that are plying within provincial waters.
There is a very strong argument that needs to be put. It has been put by many of my colleagues on this side, and I am happy to say by some members opposite, that there is a need for a subsidy for the service of ferries on the west coast of the island.
There is one other matter that is of equal concern on the west coast. That is the passage of commercial and, particularly, tanker traffic in and out of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. This is a peculiar situation and I think it deserves some attention.
The Straits of Juan de Fuca separate Vancouver Island from the state of Washington, the Olympic Peninsula. It runs pretty well down the middle of the channel. There was one provision in the treaty under which that boundary was set. It makes it quite clear that all the waters south of the forty-ninth parallel-by the time it gets down to the Straits of Juan de Fuca it is south of the forty-ninth parallel-shall be free and open for navigation to the ships of both countries.
For navigational purposes, ships of both Canada and the United States may travel across the international boundary without getting into trouble with the coast guard, the police or whatever. They are not supposed to be doing any fishing. Let us not fool ourselves. It is navigation only.
A strange situation has developed within these waters between Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula as far as the attitudes of the respective governments are concerned. On the Canadian side from the shoreline, the low water line of Vancouver Island, out to our midline which is our boundary, these are considered in Canada as internal waters; and as internal waters, international law, which includes the right of innocent passage, does not automatically apply. It may be granted on request, but not automatically.
On the American side of this boundary and down to the southern edge of it to the Olympic Peninsula, the first three miles off the low water line up toward the boundary are considered by the United States authorities as territorial waters. That is all, just three miles. From three miles to the international border, which in some places would be as much

as 12 and in some cases as little as 10, the United States authorities consider these waters as the high seas to which the right of innocent passage applies under international law. These are the waters into which the vessels carrying the crude oil from Prudhoe Bay should be entering, possibly before the end of the year. We have cause for concern.
There are two different regimes covering this body of water. In existence now is a voluntary system of pilotage. Ships coming in are expected to enter on the starboard side through waters which, under the U.S. interpretation, are the high seas and where they have the right to innocent passage. They are supposed to go out on the starboard side too, which puts them in Canadian waters where they do not have the right of innocent passage. This is a stupid situation. The Canadian and United States authorities must resolve it before the tankers come. One could imagine circumstances in which the standards on the Canadian side might be such that, having been allowed in by the American authorites, the vessels could not get out to sea again.
I do not know where the fault lies, but this situation must be sorted out because these are the waters in which the tankers carrying the crude oil will be sailing. Further, these are not calm waters. They are often subject to high winds, strong currents, fog. A voluntary system of traffic management will not do. We need something better. There must be a mandatory system in force from the Pacific Ocean through the Straits of Juan de Fuca to wherever these vessels go. I should like to see them prevented from coming in, because we have found a better place for them to offload their cargoes. But as matters now stand they are planning to come in, and I suggest everything possible be done to prepare for this in advance.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) was talking about the need to assist communities in coastal British Columbia with special reference to the services available to them by water. It was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), urged on by some members of his own party, who was looking for some ways to save money-I hesitate to mention names but if pushed I might be able to produce one- who decided to go after the $4 million freight subsidy covering Northland Navigation.


An hon. Member:: She got mad at him.


Donald W. Munro: Well, if she got mad at him at that time she might not have had quite as much influence as I thought she had. If she made a mistake, she backed away from it. People who live far from the coast do not understand about the need for a good freight and passenger transport service on that coast. This is a land of some 5,000 pioneers, we might call them, who are making their living in more than a hundred small, isolated communities from Howe Sound up to Rivers Inlet.
The coastline runs for 500 miles, encompassing some 150 inlets and places of call. One has to travel up that coast on one of these freight carriers to appreciate the beauty and also the
March 7, 1977

danger of the voyage, not to mention the need for this service. Those who use it are Indian reserves, logging camps, stores, sawmills, fishing camps, guides, summer resorts and retirement communities ranging from one or two families to 250 people. There is no other way of reaching these places unless by a privately-owned float plane. What do these vessels carry? They carry explosives, food, furniture, compressed gas. And liquor. I have seen them onloading the empties-not on this coast but on the west coast of Vancouver Island-and offloading the full bottles from the provincial liquor board. They carry livestock, lumber, machinery, tires, trucks and wire rope. They also bring cargo to the Vancouver market, shakes and shingles, machinery for repair, frozen shrimps, and sometimes even dirty laundry.
Aircraft have been suggested as a supplementary means of transport in the area. But aircraft are hampered by seasonal conditions, fog most of all. In the long haul sea transport provides the only communication with the outside world for weeks and weeks. This is the area from which the subsidy has been withdrawn, throwing the communities north of Vancouver into a complete tizzy. I trust that other members of the House, both on this side and across the way, will be addressing themselves to this particular matter. These are not ferries about which I have been talking.
Ferries join the mainland to Vancouver Island, both to Nanaimo and to Schwartz Bay in my riding. Fares on these services have had to be doubled in the last year to make them pay. The route from Nanaimo to Horseshoe Bay is part of the trans-Canada highway. That highway was built with subsidies from federal funds. I just cannot understand why there is a gap in the trans-Canada highway because no subsidy has been paid, as it has on other parts, both for maintenance and construction. The slipway also deserves a subsidy, as do the vessels themselves and the vessel operations.
I see Your Honour is getting a little unsettled, so with that I will say thank you very much.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome Bill C-33. I feel it is a piece of legislation which is going to put back into law what has, in effect, been the practice regarding the government's relationship with the Canadian Transport Commission. The so-called independence of that commission which was touted when the existing legislation was passed about ten years ago never really materialized, and in many instances-I intend to give an example of one later-it was actually used to camouflage, in effect, the government's own unwillingness to take certain steps. This legislation brings back to the cabinet full responsibility, which in effect was always there anyway but which was at times at least partially camouflaged. The legislation is a needed rationalization. I am looking forward to supporting the bill in committee and perhaps trying to improve certain aspects of it.
The subject matter to which I wish to address myself tonight is urban transit. The House had an opportunity to discuss urban transit last Friday but the debate was a fairly one-sided
National Transportation Act
affair so far as this side of the House was concerned. It was a very good example of just how the political perception of members of this House as to what policies are vital to the well being of this country can be affected by home town or home constituency realities.
With the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan), who addressed himself to two arguments against the government's living up to the promises it made to the Canadian public during the 1974 election campaign, the fact that no other member from an urban riding had the opportunity to speak, on this side, is an indication that, although we got the rural view, we did not get the point of view of members who every day are under the gun from their electorate in regard to what is going to happen next to relieve the almost unbearable conditions many of them have to put up with going back and forth to work because, for a number of reasons, they live in areas of the country which are not served by public transit facilities.
It is all very well to say that this is a provincial matter. It is all very well to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said, that there have been two major fundamental changes in Canada since the 1974 election. Double digit inflation and the need for restraint have become paramount in the government's considerations regarding embarking upon new programs. The parliamentary secretary's other argument was that since November 15 last the prospect is for a major realignement in the federal-provincial division of powers. I do not know that he used that exact term, but in any event he implied that this was a very poor time for the federal government to be launching new spending programs in areas where there is a fairly clear provincial responsibility.
The two arguments that he made, he made well, but I feel that the counter arguments-I will advance at least half a dozen of the major ones-far outweigh whatever merit or validity the two positions that he advanced had.
As for double digit inflation and the restraint program, surely, Mr. Speaker, we are facing in this country a situation where, unless something is done quickly about our energy consumption and unless something is done soon to move away from the tremendous reliance on petroleum product consumption, we will find ourselves in an extremely dangerous financial position vis-a-vis our balance of payments and our trade picture with the rest of the world.
The energy conservation aspect is only one part of the total picture in terms of petroleum product consumption. An urban transit program can be started now but it will be two or three years down the road before any serious demands for money are going to be made. The total cost for the economy over the medium term, say 12 to 15 years, will be tremendous unless a program is commenced now. The potential for gasoline savings by moving quickly to public transit in our urban areas and major cities and suburbs is enormous. Moving over the longer haul to electrical transportation systems using rails has even greater energy conservation potential.
As for the prospect which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance fears, namely, a realignment of feder-

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
al-provincial powers, I do not feel like jumping the gun on that subject now. From what I can see the public of Canada is still largely sympathetic to a strong central government acting where there is a need and a reasonable case for federal intervention and where there is some constitutional responsibility.
In the area of urban transit there are several constitutional grounds which I would argue justify federal intervention. There is a clearcut federal responsibility for railways and I would suggest that as the promise in 1974 included action on public transit systems involving the use of rail facilities, passenger train facilities, as well as railroad beds being upgraded for rapid transit use, these are all matters where constitutionally the federal government can and should have an input.
When I refer, as I did earlier, to the whole question of energy conservation and the long-term effect this can have on the balance of payments and the future economic prosperity of this country, then it seems to me we have a constitutional responsibility above and beyond our responsibility with regard to railways. This does and should allow us to provide at least the kind of catalystic funding which could stimulate the public transit programs which this country, and particularly the suburbs which have grown up around the cities, so desperately need.
What is happening now is unfortunately reminiscent of what happened with our entire housing program after the Second World War. In the early 1950's the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was established. The intention was that it would not only provide good housing for Canadians-which it did eventually by establishing standards which make Canadians today well housed in comparison with any other country and we can be proud of it-but at the beginning it had another hope just as important as housing. It was concerned that the places where houses were to be built should be well planned. The idea was to use the lending power of CMHC to require the municipalities and the provinces where the housing was to be built, to plan properly.
Unfortunately the Liberal government of the day in its wisdom did not want to go out on a limb. It felt that it could not do this constitutionally so in effect all this housing, with a few exceptions, was built at the whim of local developers and local municipal politicians were the arbiters. In my view this was a tragedy. We had the power at that time to develop suburbs that made sense from every point of view.
Recently members of this House who sit on the committee for the National Capital Region attended a seminar arranged by the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C. where they had an opportunity to visit Columbia, one of the new cities that lies outside Washington. I also had had an opportunity previously to visit Reston. These are two new cities planned from scratch and they could have been emulated in this country. Back in the 1950's we had the people, the architects, and the visionary planners to do this but they were not allowed to.
[Mr. Watson.)
Let me give an example of what can happen with this kind of planning. Neighbourhoods are arranged around schools, then there are villages made up of several neighbourhoods and sufficient villages in the case of Columbia to make a city of about 100,000 people. The result is that 85 per cent of the children can walk to school. In Columbia alone this year school busing costs show a saving of over $1 million. It is estimated that the saving in school bus and transportation related capital investment is $150 million compared to what it would have been if there had been no planning.
This is only one aspect of the potential saving through this type of planning. We had the potential to do it and failed. We still have not influenced planning concepts in the development of almost all our suburbs.
I suggest that we are in the process of doing the same thing with urban transit funds as we did with housing. The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act passed in 1974 not only provides for upgrading of existing rail lines for rapid transit purposes but more important, it provides as a precondition of federal funding of a rapid transit or public transit plan or regional transportation plan that there be a regional development plan. Section 3(1) of the act reads as follows:
Where, in respect of an area in a province that includes or comprises an urban area (hereinafter in this Part called a "transportation study area"), the government of the province and all the municipalities within that area have agreed upon an urban development plan and transportation plan (hereinafter in this Part called an "accepted plan") for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality may, subject to subsection (5), apply to the Commission for such orders as the Commission may make under section 6 and as arc necessary to carry out the accepted plan.
The railway relocation plan which we passed in April of 1974 is the framework for making full use of our railway lines around cities or for public transit purposes, and it also-and this is the portion which is so important-provides that prior to doing this there must be not only agreement with the provinces but a regional transport plan and a regional development plan. These requirements would mean that in the future at least we will avoid the kind of development lacking public transit facilities which have characterized our surburban growth since World War II. If we do not move quickly toward funding urban transit, we will be making the same mistake for which we are now paying the consequences in excessive automobile use and excessive reliance on the automobile.
I mentioned our constitutional rights regarding railways and 1 have made reference to energy self-sufficiency obviously being a national objective. Surely the quality of living of our people is a matter of concern. In my own district of Laprairie-Chateauguay there are people who leave their houses at 6.30 in the morning in order to be at work or in class at 9 a.m., and yet they are only 15 miles away from their offices or classes. They have to put in an hour and a half of waiting in line to get across a bridge which is crowded with automobile traffic. Almost all the people trying to cross the bridge in the morning had moved into the area into houses built with CMHC loans or guarantees. It is we who have lent them money in a totally unplanned way.
March 7, 1977

We encouraged development in these areas through CMHC. Now we are standing back and washing our hands of the responsibility. Not only on the south and north shores of Montreal but across the country until three or four years ago the development that took place was largely funded by CMHC direct loans or CMHC guarantees. We encouraged these people to move into the suburbs, and now we wash our hands of them.
The example which the United States is giving us in the area of conservation will be brought home very effectively to us when President Carter next April 20 makes his announcement. We have been footdraggging on the question of energy conservation and we will have to be prepared to accept large increases in our fuel costs, restrictions on the kinds of automobiles we drive and the kinds of luxuries we enjoy if we are serious about energy conservation.
Last summer Gallup made a poll of the Canadian population on the subject of the desirability of increased conservation efforts in the nation. Of the respondents, 85.8 per cent said that it was desirable to have increased conservation efforts, 9.1 per cent said no, and 5.1 per cent had no opinion. Surely to those members of the government who accord some importance to public opinon polls this poll should be fairly convincing.
While I do not expect us to move to the federal U.S. position which involved the U.S. government paying 80 per cent of urban transit systems across the United States as well as a percentage of the operating costs, it seems to me that the formulas which were outlined during the 1974 campaign, most of which involved a 50 per cent sharing of costs, make a lot of sense. They made sense then, they were good promises, promises which at that time the government obviously felt it could back up. Rather than as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has said, that there are two major reasons why we should not fulfill these promises, 1 would argue that the reverse is true. If anything has happened, the factors which would make such a program more essential now than ever have become increasingly evident. Energy conservation is one, and world costs of petroleum which have gone up considerably even since 1974 are another.
I have mentioned conservation, living standards, and the quality of living to which surely we have to pay some attention. If you have people waiting in line at bridges crossing to the island of Montreal, crossing into Vancouver or coming into one of the Toronto expressways every morning for minutes or sometimes hours on end, this is a waste not only of energy but of human resources which is unacceptable in a society which prides itself on wishing to give us all a better quality of life.
The absolutely startling figures which were revealed last year when the budget estimates were tabled for 1975-76 indicated an overwhelming expenditure of federal funds to even out petroleum prices for all Canadians. We had to spend a total $1.6 billion to even out the price to all Canadians to make up the difference between the world price which we paid for petroleum for our eastern market and which was sold at the much lower domestic price and what we were not able to
National Transportation Act
cover of that world and domestic differential from our sales of petroleum to the United States at world prices. I think it would be a fairly reasonable guess-although I do not pretend it to be accurate-that of that $1.6 billion, $800 million went on gasoline expenditure. We spent that year approximately $800 million out of our budget to subsidize the consumption of gasoline in this country. We then felt it necessary to institute-as we did in 1975-a ten cents a gallon gasoline tax which helped to reduce that tremendous drain on our federal resources.
With this ten cents per gallon gasoline tax I understand our gasoline now sells at very close to the world price, but I argue that if it really does boil down to a question of finding funds and not being able to find them anywhere else, that we should direct our attention to that ten cents per gallon tax and use it, even if it means we have to bring the price of gasoline up to the world price and have the ten cents per gallon added to that world price. It should be used to fund what we have to do in the area of urban transit, and if there is anything left over it should be used for other conservation efforts. That would bring the price of gasoline above the world price, but it would allow us to continue to keep the price of heating oil slightly under the world price. This is the kind of hard decision which 1 feel the government is going to have to make if it expects to receive the confidence of the Canadian public in the future.
I never cease to be puzzled by the shortsighted arguments which are advanced against urban transit funding by the government. When we desire to create new jobs in high technology fields-and half a dozen ministers are talking about this continually-surely this is a suitable endeavour in the Montreal area, in the Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and Toronto areas.
There are several major companies and literally dozens of subsidiary companies which would be affected by the side effects of a major move into the building of urban transit vehicles of one kind or another in this country. This is the kind of job creating program which really does make sense. It makes far more sense than some of the nonsensical efforts we seem to make from time to time to stimulate job development in various parts of the country.
A measure which was, in effect, ready to be legislated was the proposed transport development corporation. It was all set to go. It was drafted, but it has been held back and never brought before this House by way of legislation. The advantages of standardization across the country in urban transit systems are so obvious that there should not even be an argument. These things have all been left to linger or drag along. They have not been pushed, and it comes back to what I said at the very beginning. It is unfortunate, but the perspective of the people in this House is determined by their own constituency needs. For example, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were sitting for the South Shore instead of for the town of Mount Royal, and if he did not have a train running through a tunnel from the middle of the city to his riding, hon.

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
members could be sure that he would have a different perspective.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) did not represent a downtown area and instead was representing an area like mine where his constituents were knocking on his door and telephoning him about the problem, he would have a different perspective. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has a potential transit vehicle company in his constituency. It is an important transit vechicle company, and perhaps he should have another look at that aspect of the urban transit problem.
There is another important need which hon. members should not ignore when they are thinking about influencing the future relationship between the people of Canada and the federal government. Are we at the federal level going to be a completely foreign element as far as the average man in the street is concerned henceforth in this new federal-provincial relationship which the parliamentary secretary thinks is about to evolve, as he mentioned last Friday? Are we simply going to have a very remote relationship with the public? If that is the case, I really do not think the future looks very good for the federal government. When it can do so constitutionally the federal government needs to be in close contact with the public. By satisfying a public need which has been demonstrated in all the major cities of this country and in the suburbs of those cities for the last 15 years surely we bring ourselves closer to the people.
This closeness with the people is surely one of the stronger arguments members of the cabinet should be considering when contemplating whether they should spend the extra funds to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) alluded briefly in his remarks last Friday. I can only appeal to the cabinet that the time has come to make a favourable decision with regard to an expanded urban transit program and to the proposed transport development corporation to encourage the new technology which can produce, with Canadian effectiveness, not only adequate vehicles to service our cities in the field of urban transit for the next 15, 20 or 30 years but which can provide jobs and a fantastic amount of export market potential as well.
There are so many good arguments in favour of this that I really cannot fathom why the obviousness of the case has yet to convince the powers that be, and especially the financial powers that be, who somehow feel that the program of restraint has to zero in on a program like this one, which makes sense from every conceivable point of view, including the financial point of view. If only they would stand back from their desk, look out the window, and just think a little bit about the future of Canada-surely this is something we can ask them to do-and if they take a few minutes and apply a little Canadian common sense to this situation, then they will sympathetically review and fulfil the promises which they so generously made in the spring of 1974.
The optimism which engendered those promises surely is no less justified now, and I hope we can hear some encouragement from them in the next few days. The budget is coming

out on March 31. It must contain much more than we have been led to anticipate so far by the Minister of Finance.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) on what I consider to be a very well reasoned, well thought out, and well presented speech. Having sat on his side of the House in a position not dissimilar to his, I know from experience how difficult it was for him to make a speech like that. However, surely that is the kind of speech which has to be made from time to time to keep reminding the government of commitments it made and the moral obligation it has to discharge these commitments.
Naturally we were appalled, to say the least, when we heard the statement issued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in Toronto a short time ago. He declared that the government would not be able to discharge its commitment to spend $290 million on assisting urban areas meet their transit responsibilities to commuters. The government made that promise in 1974, as part of its election platform. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) emphasized it in a speech in Winnipeg. Two years after making the promise, the government, forced into austerity by the need to restrain federal spending, announced it could not keep that commitment.
Even though large municipalities, including metropolitan Toronto, metropolitan Winnipeg and Montreal had either begun planning how to take advantage of the federal urban transit commitment or had already spent substantial sums on programs in which it was thought the federal government would participate, the government announced it could not fulfil its commitment. I say the government will change its mind, must change it, indeed shall change it, given the economic climate in this country. I suspect that in his budget speech on March 31 the Minister of Finance will announce that the government knows how necessary is the commitment with respect to urban transit it made in 1974 to the cities. The government must also feel a moral obligation to its members representing urban areas for, to a large extent, many of them were elected, or re-elected as the case may be, on the basis of the program the government presented to the people of Canada in that campaign. The hon. member for Laprairie and other urban members documented their concern in the debate last Friday and in the questions they have raised in this house.
Despite the fine print in the Constitution, the federal government has become increasingly involved in matters under provincial jurisdiction. It has become increasingly involved in urban problems, and its responsibility for helping our growing cities is just as great as if it were clearly spelled out in the Constitution. That commitment grew from the federal government's involvement in housing. Many years ago it passed the National Housing Act, which was originally envisaged as a means of funding housing, and established Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as the executive arm to implement the provisions of the National Housing Act.
March 7, 1977

Once the federal government became so greatly involved in housing, an area which had been clearly under provincial jurisdiction, it had the concomitant responsibility to assist in planning. That responsibility carried with it the commitment to assist with urban transit, in other words, the responsibility to make sure that our cities were planned in such a way that those who lived on the fringes, in the suburbs, would have adequate transit facilities for travelling to and from their places of work. That commitment is even more important today, considering it is estimated that by the turn of the, century more than half our population will live in the three large metropolitan areas, greater Montreal, metropolitan Toronto, and the greater Vancouver area. In addition, we must provide for the growth of our medium-sized cities. This responsibility entails the provision of efficient means of transport to ensure that growth is orderly and that people who are obliged to live in our growing suburban areas will have adequate and equal access to their places of employment and business.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and municipal and other authorities in Canada have tried to reach a trilevel consensus which would make it possible for the federal jurisdiction to deal directly with the municipalities, in order to assist them in their ongoing and ever growing commitments. That is only as it should be, considering that the British North America Act does not provide our municipalities with adequate tax resources for discharging their commitments, whereas, paradoxically, at the other end of the scale the Government of Canada takes in more money than it needs.
I hope that the federal government will, as the Prime Minister has already suggested, re-assess and re-examine its position. In that regard I look forward to hearing the Minister of Finance make his budget speech on March 31.
The House passed the National Transportation Act almost ten years ago and this is our first opportunity since passage of that law to examine the policies which the National Transportation Act created and to look closely at the Canadian Transport Commission, the main regulatory agency established under the act. Of course we are also examining various transportation agencies in the country, especially the two major railways. If my memory serves me right, we have not been able to examine in committee the annual report of Canadian National Railways for at least four or five years. That makes it all the more important to raise the subject in the present debate on second reading of Bill C-33.
I come from a province which relies heavily on the federal transport commitment. It is crucial to the economy of the Atlantic provinces, and vital to the economy of Newfoundland. For us, an ongoing transportation commitment is essential. It is essential for the Government of Canada to spell out its contractual obligation to the province of Newfoundland, an obligation to assist economic growth by taking a major role in transportation to and from, and within Newfoundland. Until 1969 the major ground transport system in Newfoundland consisted of a train service operated by Canadian National Railways. As the result of a decision of the Canadian Trans-
National Transportation Act
port Commission in 1968, this service ceased on April 15, 1969.
The Canadian Transport Commission directed that, in place of the train service, a cross-island bus service should operate within the province of Newfoundland. That is contained in the Canadian Transport Commission's order No. R2673 of July, 1968. I quote it for the record:
The bus service proposed by the Applicants and described in detail in the Judgment of Woodard, C., shall be inaugurated and continued as long as a requirement for passenger service continues, and the passenger facilities, including terminals and the shelters mentioned therein, with proper communication links, shall be provided and installed, all to the satisfaction of the Committee.
That directive by the Canadian Transport Commission was carried out by CN up to July, 1976. As a result of an application which CN made to the Public Utilities Board of the province of Newfoundland for an increase in fares and as a result of a jurisdictional dispute which flowed from that application, CN, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled that the Public Utilities Board had jurisdiction by virtue of Part III of the National Transportation Act not having been proclaimed, withdrew its bus service on July 12, 1976. That was a violation of a directive by a quasi-judicial body acting under the statutory authority of the Newfoundland legislature.
What we found incomprehensible was the attitude of the Government of Canada. We appealed to the Government of Canada. The premier of the province sent a wire to the Prime Minister on July 15 last year. We set out the legal obligation of Canadian National vis-a-vis the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland as determined by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. The premier set out in the wire the constitutional obligation with regard to the Terms of Union and the order of the Canadian Transport Commission which 1 quoted, that CN continue to provide a bus service within the province.
That appeal was made to the Prime Minister to direct this Crown corporation to obey the laws of the province of Newfoundland. That is all we were asking, that they restore the service on which the people of Newfoundland were wholly dependent.
Instead of the Prime Minister acting in a responsible way and directing, by order in council, that CN restore that service in pursuance of the directive of the Canadian Transport Commission, an order in council was passed the following day, July 16, at the instance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), placing the CN road cruiser service in the province of Newfoundland under the National Transportation Act.
Nobody questions the right of the Government of Canada to proclaim that section of the act and place that particular service under it. However, surely it would have been logical to assume that before that was done the service would be restored under its existing jurisdiction, and that the laws of the province of Newfoundland as set out by the Public Utilities Board in its ruling would be upheld.

March 7, 1977
National Transportation Act
What was at issue was an application by CN for a fare increase of up to 150 per cent. Our Public Utilities Board had the nerve and the gall to say they could only have an increase of up to 30 per cent, that this in fact could not be justified on a user pay basis. They stated that it was a part of the national rail service of this country and that, to all intents and purposes, the CN road cruiser service in the province of Newfoundland, since it had a monopoly on ground transportation in the province, had the same function as CN trains before they ceased to operate in 1969.
The dispute was never resolved, the Supreme Court of Canada notwithstanding and the Constitution notwithstanding. Instead, we had an order in council passed placing the CN road cruiser service under the National Transportation Act.
The next episode in this unsavory story was an application, which we knew would follow very soon, by CN to the Canadian Transport Commission for an increase in rates. That application is now before the commission. It is very interesting because it tells it all. They modified their demands to the point where the application now before the Canadian Transport Commission calls for only an 8 per cent fare increase. However, they state, and this concerns us in the province of Newfoundland, that they are placing the service on a user pay concept. That is completely contrary to the spirit, intent and letter of the policy now before us.
In this regard I wish to quote the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) when introducing this bill on March 1. I quote from page 3525 of Hansard'.
There arc, and probably will always be, some services which are required in order to meet legitimate economic and social needs such as regional development or access to remote communities but for which the particular users cannot reasonably be expected to pay the full costs.
I tried to establish that that is obviously the case up to this point in time with regard to the CN road cruiser service in Newfoundland. The minister went on to say:
In such cases government support in the form of direct or indirect subsidy is necessary and reasonable. Government support of this kind to ensure the provision of necessary transportation facilities which cannot be commercially viable represents the use of transportation as an instrument for the achievement of economic and social objectives.
In further support of my contention I wish to quote from the June 18, 1974, Prime Minister's announcement, "Liberal party program on transportation, inter-city passenger transportation". I quote:
The Passenger Transport Corporation-
That is a corporation which the government promised to set up in 1974.
-will also ensure, with provincial co-operation, high quality passenger bus services in areas not adequately served by existing carriers.
The Prime Minister went on to refer to a "super-bus" service. We would be satisfied with ordinary bus service if we could be assured that bus service would be a part of the national transportation grid in Canada, that it would be treated the same as the new VIA rail passenger service which the minister announced, and that it would qualify in the same way for whatever federal government subsidies there may be.
(Mr. McGrath.]
This would enable the CN to provide a level of service in the province of Newfoundland in accordance with the national transportation policy. This super-bus service was to be introduced between medium-sized centres. Fares on these buses would be reasonable, but vastly superior terminal and on-board comfort and services would be provided.
I only wish the Minister of Transport and some of his officials could go to Newfoundland and take the present CN bus service from St. John's to Port aux Basques. It is the only way our people can travel across the province unless they go by air from Halifax. Let the minister take the road cruiser service, as it is referred to by the CN, from Port aux Basques to St. John's across the trans-Canada Highway, which is 600 miles long and well below ordinary trans-Canada standards; indeed it is beginning to show substantial wear and tear as a result of CN truck traffic, something which in itself is a major cause of concern. The minister and his officials should take that 14 or 15 hour trip across that long and, in many places, desolate stretch of highway. They would then realize what our people have to go through.
There are no adequate terminal facilities. There are no adequate facilities en route. People are unable to buy meals because satisfactory facilities are not available at designated stops within the time allotted for the stop-overs. In many cases there are no shelters at places where people have to stand to wait for these buses. Once aboard, passengers have to sit in fairly cramped quarters. All too often they are able to find standing room only. I really wish the minister and his officials could take that trip.


An hon. Member:: The scenery is very picturesque, though.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member says it is very picturesque. I suggest that regardless of how picturesque the scenery might be he would soon get tired of a most uncomfortable ride under most unsatisfactory conditions.
I have described what it is like to take that journey in the hope that hon. members will realize it is the only means of travel we have in Newfoundland, and I should like some assurance from the minister before this bill passes that the CN bus service in the province of Newfoundland, or in any other province in which the railways intend to operate such a service, will be considered within the terms of the Prime Minister's statement that where they fulfil the same need as railways they will be able to qualify for whatever federal subsidies there are as part of the government's transportation policies.
A short time ago the Minister of Transport met with the three maritime premiers and the minister of transport for the province of Newfoundland. I must say I was encouraged by the new attitude exemplified in the press release from the Department of Transport on the outcome of that conference. I quote from that communique of February 8, 1977.
Mr. Lang, Mr. Morgan and the Maritime Premiers agreed in principle that improved passenger transportation could best be achieved by providing special assistance for upgrading bus and air services in the region.
March 7, 1977

Hon. members will note that they were not specific. The problem with which we have to contend in Newfoundland is that the CN enjoys a monopoly. There is only one bus service throughout the province, whereas in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, while still having the advantage of rail passenger service, passengers can choose between several other modes of ground transportation which are competing for their dollars.
Anyway, if that communique is an indication of the minister's new policy, I wish he would tell us what his position is before the CTC brings down a decision with regard to the application by CN for what is to be the first of several anticipated increases in the fares to be charged on the road cruiser service in Newfoundland. 1 intend to press him on this matter when the bill goes to committee, and to do so again in the House should I have an opportunity. 1 ask the minister to tell us what he has in mind because this is most relevant to whatever decision is reached by the CTC with respect to the application by the CN for further increases in fares.
I should like some assurance that in addition to improvements in the service-and, God knows, there is an obvious need for improvements-there will be an improvement in the support services, for example, the installation of adequate terminal facilities across the province, and scheduling which will ensure that enough space is available to cope with peak periods-I have in mind holiday times, and co-ordination with the semesters of universities and colleges.
The minister has taken an obligation upon himself. We intend to hold him to it. He did so by virtue of the order in council passed last July which placed his imprimatur upon an illegal act committed by the CN. That is what it was. The minister gave an illegal act his imprimatur when he had the order in council passed removing jurisdiction from the Newfoundland Public Utilities Board and placing it under the authority of the CTC by virtue of the National Transportation Act. I hope that now he has the responsibility, notwithstanding how long the CTC may take before making a decision on the present application, a directive will be issued with respect to the obvious need for the improvement of the service in my province.
It always intrigues me that there should be no CN bus service to handle passengers coming ashore from the east coast ferry which operates between North Sydney and Argentia. Passengers using this ferry depend on private transport, which is not always adequate. Indeed it is not always available. It seems logical to me to expect that the CN, which operates this ferry service, would be able to direct one of its road cruisers to meet the ferry when it arrives.
There should also be some rescheduling of the bus service to fit in with airline schedules so that we could co-ordinate the total pattern of travel within and outside the province more effectively.
We have had to depend on CN in our province for a long time. I assume that, notwithstanding the new Via rail service and the new corporation which is to handle rail passenger service, we shall still have to depend on the CN for some time
National Transportation Act
to come to fulfil the major part of our passenger and freight traffic requirements.
Now we are going to have another study, a royal commission, which is about to be established to examine the transportation picture in the province of Newfoundland. The initiative for this study did not come from the Government of Canada or from the government of Newfoundland; the initiative came from Canadian National. Of course it found a willing participant in the federal government in the Minister of Transport, and so the study is going to be a joint study.
I regret very much that the province of Newfoundland has agreed to this study, because it is only two years since we had the last study, known as the trans-Newfoundland corridor transportation study. There are 11 volumes to that study, Mr. Speaker, which was commissioned in 1972 by the Canadian Transport Commission under the direction of the then minister of transport. It released its report in March of 1974. The study cost the people of Canada $370,000, and not one of the conclusions reached or recommendations made by that study has been acted upon to this day.
Surely it is only reasonable to ask, before we embark upon another study, just what exactly is the government's position vis-a-vis the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this last study. Or could it be that this new royal commission is merely a means, a traditional Canadian means if you like, of shelving the problem so that we do not have to deal with it for a while-so we can put the problem into cold storage for the next two or three years? We have already been postponing major decisions for two or three years since we had the last study. We are now to have another royal commission, which I suppose will cost another $500,000 or more, to bring in some further recommendations in another two years, when another government will be in office. Then another royal commission could put the thing on ice for another two years.
There is a limit to our patience, Mr. Speaker; obviously there has to be. Ours is a vast province with a relatively small population. We must have an efficient transportation system in the province, both passenger and freight, to ensure that there is economic growth within the province. Economic growth in our province in becoming crucial in these days in view of the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland today, which I believe is around 25 per cent.
I suppose there is not much more I can say about the new study; we are going to have it anyway. The Newfoundland government has agreed to it, and so has the Minister of Transport. It is just a matter now of making the announcement, and I expect that will be made any day now. I hope that one of the first things the royal commission does when it receives its commission will be to examine the 11 volumes of the trans-Newfoundland corridor transportation study commissioned by the Canadian Transport Commission and undertaken by the firm of Messrs. Peat, Marwick and Company. Certainly this is more than the Government of Canada has

March 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
done, because to this day not one of the findings or recommendations made in that report has been acted upon.
Before resuming my seat, may I say to the Minister of Transport, albeit in his absence, that before this debate is concluded we hope he will speak, notwithstanding the fact that his colleague, the Minister of Justice introduced the second reading debate on this bill. We hope he will address himself to the matters that have been raised during the course of this debate. I should like to hear him respond to the very eloquent, well reasoned, and well documented case put by the hon. member for Laprairie who preceded me in this debate. 1 hope he will have something to say to the people of Newfoundland who are beginning to feel they have been canned by these studies, and who certainly are feeling they have been studied to death by this government.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank you for your generosity at this time of the evening. Since there is only one minute and a half left and so as not to soften the impact of my remarks on Bill C-33 and its effects on transportation in the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, I should point out that it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the minister responsible for housing whether he would consider recommending that any building constructed under federal auspices should have the same protection which any federal public works has. As 1 pointed out privately to the minister at the time, the department has said that when it is constructing any building under the auspices of the federal government-there are a large number built each year-it is a requirement of the tender that no aluminum wiring be used, or at least that only copper wiring be used. Mr. Bowen, the departmental official concerned, indicated that so far to his knowledge no such building has been built since this instruction was sent out under the federal tendering system. It seems to me that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should do no less.
It is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) whose responsibility really this is. I have a bill recommending a ban on the use of aluminum wiring in domestic housing. The minister has said there is nothing wrong with
[Mr. McGrath.)
aluminum wiring, and he is correct, Mr. Speaker; there is absolutely nothing wrong with aluminum wiring so long as you do not hook it up to a power source. But normally you hook it up to a power source, which connects it to the circuitry in a house, and this is where the problem lies.
Two things happen with aluminum wiring which do not happen so readily with copper wiring. First of all, with aluminum wiring when you scratch the bright, shiny aluminum the shininess disappears and oxidation takes place almost instantaneously. When it becomes oxidized it, in effect, insulates against the proper conduct of electricity. When aluminum wires are bent over for the purpose of screwing them into switches or receptacles in the wall, the exposed wiring again almost immediately oxidizes.
Secondly, heat affects the expansion of aluminum many times faster than with copper. If you have copper screws in your receptacle and heat develops, as it will due to weakness in aluminum wiring caused by the oxidation, the aluminum wire passing around the screw will expand. This in effect flattens the wire because it then cannot expand beyond the allowance of the screw. When the wire cools, it is no longer directly connected but there is a gap. It also oxidizes where the flattening has taken place.
There are 500,000 homes with aluminum wiring in this country. I could point out the decisions that have been made in the United States and what has been done about it there, but we do not have to talk about that; what we should talk about is what we are going to do to protect people in Canada. Hydro authorities have stated that if the wiring is properly installed it is not dangerous, and that is true. Proper installation would mean adding a piece on the end of the aluminum wire. After it was cleaned a clip would be put over the wire. There would be pentrox grease inside the clip. A hydraulic clamp would then be squeezed firmly in place. The clamp would likely be made of copper so the process would be expensive. But, Mr. Speaker, it will have to happen.
One of the major culprits in this town that has looked for a shortcut at the risk of human life is the Campeau Corporation in the subdivisions it has developed. It is interesting to note that when Mr. Campeau's own house burned down there was some indication that the fire was caused by the electrical wiring system-aluminum wiring apparently. It can be argued whether or not that was so. But he built a new $150,000 house and used aluminum wiring in it. The television cameras were there to watch the installation which was widely publicized. And why was that? Because even at the risk of his own life and his children's lives he had to establish credibility so that he would not lose his money through having to rewire the Campeau subdivisions.
I am positive one little girl was lost in a subdivision fire in Ottawa last year because of electrical wiring, and I am pretty sure there were two more boys burned in the same subdivision shortly afterwards. People expert in the field say that the main problem will not develop for ten years.
March 7, 1977

I suggest that we outlaw the use of aluminum wiring in future building and tag all houses that now have it so that people will know it is there and that a dangerous situation exists.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the important question raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) prompted some inquiries on my part not only within the ministry but in my own files. I was familiar with the question mainly because a member on this side of the House, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), had spoken to me several times during the last year about aluminum wiring. I found in my files several documents, not the least of them a memorandum written by the hon. member for Ontario on June 10, 1976, and addressed to several ministers. Knowing the hon. member for Ontario I am sure he will be flattered at the interest being shown in his cause by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
The matter of the installation of aluminum wiring was examined by a task force on aluminum terminations. This task force, set up under the auspices of the Canadian Standards Association, agreed that the new terminal devices which have been introduced are satisfactory but that a standard for aluminum wire should be developed to ensure that an acceptable and consistent product continues to be acceptable.
Provincial authorities, having the responsibility for establishing and enforcing electrical wiring safety standards, have taken steps to overcome initial inadequacies in the connecting devices and workmanship. They appear to be actively reviewing the matter and displaying a readiness to take any further action necessary to ensure that aluminum wiring installation will be adequately controlled and will meet acceptable standards.
Subject to new factors or changes in present conditions, we believe that this matter must be resolved by those agencies which have the expertise in the electrical field and which have been entrusted with responsibility for safety in electrical installations.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-STATEMENT OF MINISTER ON GOVERNMENT'S ACCOMMODATION OF LABOUR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to remind the House that in a speech made on October 28, 1976, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) said:
One of the first things we want to do is to create a national forum which would discuss and make recommendations on the big economic issues of the day. Such a forum would bring together representatives of government, labour, business, the farm community, possibly others.
In that speech he also said:
This is a program I have been developing with my departmental officials over several months. I will not be deterred by inflation. I will not be deterred by the wage and price control program, or by labour's opposition to it, or by opposition in the business community to the restraints.
Adjournment Debate
That was the minister's position setting out government policy on October 28.
On November 27 last, as reported at page 1332 of Hansard,
I asked about the other parties he had referred to in his speech. I said:
Can the minister say whether the Canadian Labour Congress accepts the format the minister sets out?
The minister replied:
We are not sure at this stage whether the type of forum we arc suggesting-an alliance of various interests on an equal footing to discuss national problems- would be suitable to the business community or to labour.
That was the position of the minister on November 24. On November 29, 1976, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was asked similar questions. He said in respect of a meeting with representatives of the business community:
. . . but they were positive about participation in a multipartite group which would make it possible to have discussions and perhaps agreement on some of the major economic questions .. .
On December 3 last another question was asked of the Minister of Labour as reported at page 1642 of Hansard. I asked:
.. . will the minister now please tell the House what other parties the government will be talking to, to whom he referred in his answers a few days ago-
And to whom he referred in his speech-
-and whether he has told labour what other parties he has in mind.
He was unable to set out what other parties he was referring to, and he said:
We do not know whether there is going to be some real participation by. for instance, labour.
That was on December 3. Later questions were raised again in the House on February 9 this year. These questions were directed by me to the Minister of Finance. He said in reply:
... we have active negotiations under way for a multipartite meeting with business, labour and provincial representatives.
Then he said:
We are in the process of discussions with the various groups, and we have recommended to them that they should be prepared to meet at such a generalized meeting.
Following that, on February 19 the Minister of Labour made his incredible statement about the Liberal Party and its forging a new accommodating relationship with labour, which was of course immediately denied by Mr. Morris of CLC and Mr. Pilkey of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Mr. Morris said:
. . . they now know they were sold down the river by the Liberal government . . .
Mr. Pilkey said:
There is no way labour can find any accommodation in the Liberal party.
More recently, on February 22, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) repudiated the statements of the Minister of Labour in the House and disavowed any connection with them.
The first question is as follows: has management agreed to the multipartite forum or, if not, to a tripartite forum, or either of them?

March 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
The second question is: in the discussions with the provinces, has any agreement been met with respect to the proposal of the Minister of Labour?
The third question is: has CLC agreed to the multipartite national forum and, if not, does the government expect agreement or is it prepared to settle for a tripartite consultative organization representing government, labour, and management?
Finally, has there been any discussions with other groups, as the Minister of Labour said there would be as long ago as November 24, 1976?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It seems important to me not to confuse at the outset two classes of issues. There is, on the one part, the need to maintain a healthy and vigorous dialogue between the different economic partners; on the other part, that dialogue can and does take various forms that are not necessarily incompatible with one another. So the remark by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) that we should come to new arrangements with the Canadian Labour Congress meets the first concern by reasserting the openness as well as the attachment of this government to continued discussions among partners who are not without knowledge that it is in the
interest of all to cooperate as closely in the solution of our problems.
As to the more particular issue of specific ways of initiating and continuing the dialogue it can be approached in terms of past efforts and an attempt to outline a few perspectives. I can say that to date we have had preliminary discussions with union and business representatives. It is still too early to determine the eventual direction of those discussions and what forms, whether institutionalized or not, they will take in the future. The idea of putting the Canada Labour Relations Board or still the Economic Council of Canada back in motion as a meeting point or a general framework for discussions are all so many available possibilities but on which it would be premature to surmise at this point. As to the Labour Congress we know that its preference goes to a tripartite structure but the government already expressed reservations about that.
All this to indicate in the final analysis that we are still looking for-and in this respect the dialogue with the parties concerned is still going on-an appropriate framework for the discussion of government policies. But whatever the final forum on which the parties will agree this government has no intention whatsoever of abandoning the efforts made so far and which look promising.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.14 p.m.

Tuesday, March 8, 1977