1977-03-03

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported in the news today that the vice-president of the Korea Electric Corporation, the purchaser of the CAN DU reactor has said that no agent was used in the sale of the reactor and that the Korea Electric Corporation was specifically instructed by the government of Korea to deal directly with Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, and the company had in fact complied with these instructions.
Considering that this assertion flatly contradicts testimony that has been presented both by a minister of the Crown and by AECL officials who have contended that not only was an agent essential but also that one was used at a fee of over $18 million, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government order a full judicial inquiry with powers provided by the Inquiries Act to investigate all the circumstances related to the payment of commissions to Mr. Shaul Eisenberg by EACL.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under Standing Order 43 can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: 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 unilateral action taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to increase the St. Lawrence seaway tolls will seriously and adversely affect our export trade, Canada-United States relations, primary and secondary industries including therein steel, agriculture and coal, to name a few, and will inflict
severe irreparable economic hardship on the city of Hamilton and district and over all will increase unemployment.
And whereas, at least the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Seafarers' International Union and many others are unilaterally opposed to any increase in tolls. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That the issues of the St. Lawrence seaway and financial implications related thereto be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for the purposes of identifying the number of direct and indirect economic inter-relationships that exist with respect to the usage of the seaway and further determining whether the raising of tolls is in the best interests of Canada and until a report from the said committee is tabled and reviewed that no further action be taken to introduce a new tariff of tolls.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 permits the presentation of such motion for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


USE OF DOLLAR ITEMS IN ESTIMATES RATHER THAN LEGISLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, to present a motion dealing with a matter which many of us feel is of considerable urgency. It came to light yesterday, when the supplementary estimates were tabled, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) proposes to deal with Via Rail Canada and the indebtedness of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, not with ordinary bills which go through all stages, but by the device of a dollar item in the estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It also came out that of the 11 items in the estimates under the name of the Minister of Transport, ten are dollar items.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The minister is afraid to face parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):

March 3, 1977
Oral Questions
That this House calls on the Minister of Transport to present to parliament separate bills dealing with Via Rail Canada and with the indebtedness of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, instead of curtailing the right of parliament to discuss these important issues by using the device of dollar items in the supplementary estimates, it being the view of this House that for one minister to propose eleven supplementary estimates, ten of them as dollar items, is a flagrant violation of the rights of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE AREAS AFFECTED BY WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FOR URBAN TRANSIT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the funding of urban transit in the Toronto-Oakville-Milton-Burl-ington and Hamilton corridor. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House urges the government to establish a special committee of the House of Commons, to examine the urban transit areas that will be affected by the withdrawal of the $290 million of federal funds recently announced by the Minister of Finance, and, further, that the committee be empowered to examine the $45.1 billion of spending estimates presently before the House with a view to finding $290 million which could be diverted from other projects to urban transit.


Walter David Baker: The money could be diverted from the minister's salary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the Standing Order such motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of directing a serious question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with sovereignty, but not the sovereignty of the people as established yesterday in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!


John George Diefenbaker: When Her Majesty was in Kingston during the Olympics, she indicated that she wanted to visit Canada and would spend some time here in the various provinces. She is to spend three weeks in New Zealand and four in Australia. I ask the Prime Minister why, if press reports are correct, she is being limited in Canada to four days in the Ottawa-Hull area? As part of my question I also ask why nothing was done following the statement the Premier of Ontario, made on January 12, that he was inviting the Queen to come to various areas of Ontario? Is the Prime Minister taking the stand now that she should be denied the right to see her Canadian subjects in a way that would enable her thereby to realize the affection in which she is held?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the right hon. gentleman made some mention in his introduction about the Queen expressing the desire and the wish to be in Canada for a few weeks. She certainly has not expressed such a wish to me, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, that is something that is completely false. In so far as her desire to be seen by her Canadian subjects, I would point out that she has been in every part of Canada-except Newfoundland, but every province and territory-at least once and in many cases several times in the past nine years. Certainly, she has come to Canada more often and more regularly since this government has been in power than at any other time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Her Majesty came under Mr. Pearson's government in 1967 for the Centennial. She came for a provincial centennial in 1969. She came for another centennial in 1970, which is two. She came for another centennial in 1971, which is three. She came twice in 1973, once for the Commonwealth and once, I believe, for another centennial, that of Prince Edward Island, which is five. She came again in 1976 for the Olympics, which is six. She will be coming in 1977, which is seven. She is supposed to come in 1978 for the Edmonton Games, which is eight times in ten years. I do not think the right hon. member should be concerned about Her Majesty not being seen by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister not realize that she was here for five or six weeks during the period of my administration? Having given this recital, does he indicate she is in Canada among her own people as Queen of Canada too often? Is that what he means?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Does this indicate that the Prime Minister a year ago meant what he said that when the constitution came back to Canada we would determine whether we should have the monarchy and he would name the first president of Canada in the person of Jules Leger. That was his speech made in March one year ago. Is he going to deny to the premier of Ontario and to other premiers the right to have Her Majesty in their provinces? Let us get to the present and find
March 3, 1977

out what the Prime Minister's plan is and why he takes so arrogant a stand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as the premier of Ontario is concerned, it is true he made a suggestion to me that Her Majesty stay longer in Canada and pay a visit to Ontario. 1 would remind the hon. member, as 1 did the premier of Ontario, that when she came for the Olympics last year, Her Majesty also visited Ontario. The one province that has not been visited in recent years is Newfoundland. 1 would think that they have a claim on a visit by Her Majesty before Ontario. It would be our plan to suggest that that visit take place when Her Majesty returns for the Commonwealth Games. It is still believed by a lot of people that Ottawa is a part of Ontario and that Ottawa is the capital of Canada. We feel this is a good way to show to Her Majesty that her visit to Canada on the occasion of her twenty-fifth anniversary is a pleasure to all Canadians including the right hon. member. By insisting that Her Majesty had been here for five or six weeks during his time, is he insinuating that she was here for too long during that visit?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mi Diefenbaker: Let us get away from his evasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him whether, if the premier of Newfoundland would like to have the Queen there, a visit would be permitted? I ask him as well whether he told the premier of Ontario that he did not feel it would be good for the country at this time to have the Queen on a visit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. That is an untruth of the grossest sort such as sometimes one expects on this subject from the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I would direct a serious question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the statement by the vice president of the Korea Electric Corporation, reported today, with reference to the sale of the CANDU reactor to that country that "We have used no agents; it was not necessary", will the minister undertake that all payments due to Mr. Shaul Eisenberg or to his company in connection with the sale be suspended immediately until the Public Accounts Committee is fully satisfied that Mr. Eisenberg actually performed the services he has claimed?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: The
obligation lies between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the gentleman, or the company, named. 1 would be prepared to pass on to my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the representation made by the leader of the New Democratic Party for his advice, and, in turn, to AECL in this regard.


John Edward Broadbent: I suggest that the cabinet as a whole has the major responsibility in this area and that it cannot be shuffled off in that facile way. On January 27, in reply to a question by myself, the hon. gentleman's colleague stated in the House:
An agent in this kind of transaction is a very important part of securing the transaction. I am told that competition in South Korea fora reactor was vicious.
Would the minister consider that statement made by his colleague in the House and compare it with the following statement by the vice-president of the Korea Electric Corporation which purchased the reactor:
After all, AECL had no competitor at the time and no agent was involved. All negociation was directly with AECL and all correspondence was directly between AECL and Korea Electric.
Given the evident contradiction between these two statements, one made by a Minister of the Crown in the House and the other by the vice-president of the Korean corporation involved, I would ask the Minister of Finance, having regard to his past connection with this matter, whether he stands by the claim made by his colleague when he made the statement, on January 27, which 1 have just quoted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, that was certainly the advice we had from the corporation at the time-quite to the contrary there was competition for the reactor with one, if not both, of the United States electrical manufacturing companies.


REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO PAYMENT OF AGENTS FEES TO MR. EISENBERG
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, which I will address to the Prime Minister. Considering that the public accounts committee, in part because of the rules established by this House, has been unable to sort out the wheat from the chaff in this very important matter, and considering that today we have had provided a statement by the vice-president of the corporation in Korea that bought the nuclear reactor which flatly contradicts testimony of AECL officials and also flatly contradicts the statement made in this House by a minister of the Crown, would the Prime Minister undertake to set up a full public judicial inquiry into this whole matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to look into the subject matter raised by the hon. gentleman and particularly try to ascertain what exactly was said by the Korean gentleman. For my part, if there is a contradiction between the two I will try to ascertain how that can be; but from the point of view of the leader of the New Democratic Party I would say that it seems to me that his choice is very simple. He has not shown that he has very
3602

March 3, 1977
Oral Questions
great trust in the Koreans and he has been asking us not to sell our reactor to them. Therefore, if he is forced to this choice, I suppose he would be forced to admit that ministers are more trustworthy than the persons concerned.


PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF MR. EISENBERG'S AGENCY CONTRACT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberiand-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this matter which I would also direct to the Prime Minister. Because AECL has retained Shaul Eisenberg and the UDI group of companies of Israel to be the exclusive agents for the sale of a second CANDU reactor to Korea, and in view of what is reported in today's Toronto Daily Star in direct quotes by Mr. Sung Nack Chung, vice-president of Korea Electric, to the effect that Korean government policy is not to use any commercial agent and that in fact one was not used in the sale of the first CANDU reactor, would the Prime Minister take it upon himself either to cancel or to consider cancelling the contractual business relationship which now exists between AECL and the Eisenberg group of companies, especially for the sale of the next CANDU reactor in Korea?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this question can only be answered in the way I answered the question of the leader of the New Democratic Party. We have an allegation in a quote in a newspaper of some gentleman whom I am sure none of us in this House has ever heard of before. I would at least have to find out a little more about this before in any way doubting that officials of AECL or a minister of this government have not told the exact facts as they know them to be. I will look into the matter.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Recently the minister received a long brief from the Canadian Footwear Manufacturers Association indicating, among other things, that 55 per cent of the Canadian footwear market is supplied by imports, increasing unemployment insurance applicants by 25,000 workers from one of the oldest industries in Canada. Does the minister intend to amend the Textile and Clothing Board Act so that the footwear industry can be included in its jurisdiction with a view to imposing quantitative restrictions to imports and, if not, what does he intend to do to avoid the bankruptcy of that important Canadian industry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I looked into the possibility of bringing

the problem of the footwear industry under the umbrella of the Textile and Clothing Board, but that would require the adoption of a new act. Having discussed the matter with the industry, we agreed to refer the matter to the Anti-dumping Board in such a way that the latter can give priority to a study of the problem and make recommendations to the government. That proposal was made to the industry some ten days ago. Since then, I have been in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who guaranteed his cooperation and that of the Anti-dumping Board with a view to finding a solution to the problem as soon as possible.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the earlier questions directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the vice president of Korea Electric Company has cast doubt on the active role of Shaul Eisenberg as an agent in the sale of a nuclear power plant to South Korea, and in view of the fact that the former president and the current president of AECL both testified before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that Mr. Eisenberg is worth every cent of the $18 million fee, a sentiment that was endorsed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, will the Prime Minister say what further steps the government is prepared to take to ensure that full documentation to support that $18 million payment in public funds is provided for the Public Accounts Committee and for the House at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will try to ascertain whether the quotes were accurate and what exactly was said by the gentlemen, and if there is indeed a contradiction between the two positions, I will see what further action can be taken in order to comply with the lady's concern.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the minister why it is, given the fact that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and indeed all members of the government have said many times they want to get to the bottom of the case and the RCMP was asked to investigate it, a reporter from a newspaper can go to Korea and get this sort of information while the RCMP was not able to get it and lay it before the Public Accounts Committee?
March 3, 1977


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The investigation by the RCMP into the question which was referred to by the Department of Justice is an ongoing investigative matter.


James McPhail Gillies: I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he does not think that by this time, when we have these sorts of reports coming in from reporters, the RCMP should at least have such reports. Can he tell the House when he will report to the House or to the Public Accounts Committee on that investigation?


Francis Fox: Investigations carried out by the RCMP pertain to matters relating to the criminal law. If there is any evidence of a criminal offence committed in this country by Canadian citizens which can be brought to the attention of Canadian courts, the investigation will proceed in the normal fashion and charges will be laid in the normal course.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Last night the minister was asked about reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in its investigation of the Boeing Company for alleged pay-offs to officials of foreign governments and foreign airlines, was examining Boeing sales made to Canada in 1970-71. The minister said that he would be discussing this matter this morning with his Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, and the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the minister tell the House what the outcome of this discussion was, whether he feels there should be any further investigation and whether he has requested more information from the Securities and Exchange Commission?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have to get more information on the basis of the reports which the Securities and Exchange Commission has. Until there is evidence of impropriety, there is no point in holding a full scale investigation. In the interim, however, my officials are making the files secure so that they are available and all evidence of people who were involved at that time is collected so that, in the event of an inquiry, all necessary information will be ready and available.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: May I point out that the minister did not answer my final question, whether he would request more information from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS TO COMPANY BY BOEING-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1 should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister tell the House what action, if any, he has taken or is taking with respect to the allegations that Boeing may have made improper payments to facilitate the sales of its planes to Air Canada during the period 1968 to 1974?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Air Canada took action immediately upon hearing the allegations to determine if there appeared to be any connection between the allegations and anyone connected with Air Canada. So far, that investigation indicates that there is no such connection. Of course, we will jointly want to seek whatever other information may be available beyond what has been obtained up to this point.


TOURISM
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if he would be so good as to return to his seat.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't be so pompous, George.


An hon. Member:: Vite, vite, vite.


George Harris Hees: As this country had a record deficit in international travel last year amounting to $1.25 billion, despite the fact that we hosted the 1976 Olympics, by far the greatest tourist attraction anywhere in the world last year, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House just what he and his department intend to do to restore international travel to a positive basis in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in December last year I held a federal-proVincial conference on that matter with all provincial ministers responsible for tourism. We discussed that very serious problem which resulted in a considerable debit balance for tourism. We have yet to find a practical solution. Of course, it would be hard these days to deny Canadians the possibility of getting a bit of sun in Florida. Unfortunately I have been told that the weather this winter was not particularly favourable in that region, so I hope it will be better next year. I am convinced that many Americans will come to visit us with great pleasure.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that was about the weakest answer I have ever heard in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80010-22%

March 3, 1977
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: As we rely completely on the weather, on the grace of God and on a few other things to restore things to the proper level, 1 ask the minister whether he would not agree that Canada has a tremendous number of attractions to bring people here to this country to spend their tourist dollars, and would he therefore not take some positive action to advertise throughout the world and in other ways make it possible for Canada to have a positive balance in this important field?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we have an advertisement program in the United States and elsewhere to invite tourists to visit Canada. We are doing a lot of advertising in the United States, in England and in various other countries. However no one can deny that the tourist season in Canada is much shorter than in other countries and since Canadian citizens are even more wealthy because of the good administration of this government, an increasing number of them can afford to go to California or Florida.


George Harris Hees: Would he mind substituting action for mere words.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who is also in charge of the National Capital Commission.
As the dispute over contracts for the construction of a regional sewage treatment plant in western Quebec seems on its way to settlement, could the minister tell the House whether the government of Quebec intends to go on sharing with the NCC the cost of improvements to the national capital highway network so that users would at least be provided with adequate and modern highways?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question, which allowed me to check this whole issue with the NCC authorities. I learned that in fact a letter had been sent to the Quebec intergovernmental affairs department in early January, 1977 informing Quebec authorities that some $12 million were made available by the federal government for the improvement of the highway network in western Quebec. As we know, according to a federal-provincial agreement of some $300 million, the federal government is prepared to pay 50 per cent of the bill for upgrading this road system. However, we have not yet received any answer from this good and true government.


PLANS FOR COMPLETION OF OTTAWA RIVER PARKWAY-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the same minister. In view of the importance of roads, which was mentioned by the hon. member who just resumed his seat, and in view of the importance of the quality of life, the movement of traffic and the general enhancement of the national capital, would the minister look into reactivating plans for the completion of the National Capital Commission parkway along the Ottawa River? I understand the engineering has been completed and this parkway is important to the development of facilities at the corner of Baseline Road and Woodroffe Avenue in the Township of Nepean.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the use of temporary help in government departments supplied by private employment agencies does not involve man-year authorization, and in view of the fact that estimates suggest that millions of dollars could be saved for Canadian taxpayers if the government would put into operation its own temporary help agency, can the minister tell the House if he is now prepared to go ahead with plans for a temporary help agency under the auspices of the Public Service Commission?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that at the present time is no. There are certain cost benefit analyses which indicate it is not the wisest decision to make. There still is a possibility, but at the present time we are not entertaining any ideas that we proceed on that basis.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that people hired through private agencies get only one-half to two-thirds of the amount the government pays for them, compared with 95 per cent under the Ontario government's Go Temporary program, and in view of the fact that employees under the Ontario program have the right to compete for jobs in the civil service, unlike those hired through temporary help agencies, and in view of the fact that section 41 of the International Labour Code calls for the elimination of profit-making, feecharging employment agencies, would the minister at least tell the House what steps his department is considering to protect the interests of people the government hires through these private employment agencies?
March 3, 1977


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, all those factors were taken into consideration in the examinations which led to the decision not to proceed at this time. Private agencies are legitimate businesses. There are certain circumstances under which they obviously must charge in excess of the amount the employee gets in order to cover overhead costs and administrative costs. This is a stand-by service which is available on occasions when it is needed by the government and by other employers, so on balance at the present time the decision seems to be reasonable.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister has said it is fairly obvious that his officials have been snowed by private temporary agencies. Is the minister at least prepared to look at the Go Temporary program in the province of Ontario to see if the same kind of savings which were made there could also be made at the federal level?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the Go Temporary operation of the Ontario government, and if I could dig a little bit below the surface I would be glad to elaborate on that when I have an occasion to go into detail. It is not the rosy picture the hon. member portrays.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. On Friday last I asked him a question with regard to the rejection or the repudiation by the government of the 1974 electoral promise about $290 million for modern urban transit. At that time I asked him about Edmonton in particular, and the minister replied that he would have to look into this matter for greater precision. Is he now in a position to indicate his stand with regard to the undertakings given to authorities in the city of Edmonton?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to the hon. gentleman. I do not yet have the information at hand. I will make a point of finding out overnight, and I will be glad to respond tomorrow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. How firm a commitment is there from the United States on the proposed St. Lawrence Seaway toll increases, and where did that commitment come from?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the announcement yesterday indicated, the question of arranging these increases by agreement is a matter of negotiation, so it is not a matter at this point of talking about a commitment.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last Monday the hon. member for Montmorency stated before the Beauport Chamber of Commerce that, given the new autonomist trend expressed quite openly by several provinces, it seemed to him very plausible that matters such as communications, culture, immigration, urban affairs, manpower, social policy and agriculture could become exclusive provincial jurisdictional matters, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he himself and his government fully endorse the intentions or views expressed by the member, and whether he spoke on his own behalf or on behalf of the party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said, the government I am leading, with the support of the hon. member for Montmorency and many others, is prepared to re-open the constitutional debate on that matter by starting off back at square one. If the opposition parties are really interested in discussing that matter, I shall be very glad to re-open the debate. I should like simply to repeat to the hon. member that in the last seven or eight years my government has made several proposals designed to set up a new power sharing, taking part in a debate on the Senate, the Supreme Court, the spending power, guaranteed cultural and language rights for Quebecers, constitutional guarantee for bilingualism, and many other issues.
I even wrote to the premier of Quebec asking him a very simple question: yes or no, did he want to patriate the constitution or would he rather launch the debate first on the issue of power sharing? Mr. Levesque has yet to answer me. Apparently Mr. Morin has stated that he was waiting for the reply of the other provinces before giving his. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec government should know where it is heading in respect of that matter and at least start by answering the letters that it gets.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, considering the reply of the Prime Minister, I would like to have a clear answer and know whether the statement made by the hon. member for Montmorency is an indication that the government is prepared to negotiate with the provinces the redistribution of jurisdictions referred to by this hon. member.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I said so in Quebec City. The question is which level of government will best meet

March 3, 1977
Oral Questions
the people's needs. These matters can be discussed and government members have their own views. 1 do not know whether this is also true for the members of the opposition, but we will find out if we have a debate on this.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. With the Canadian dollar having fallen to the 95 cent range, having fallen again to 95.75 cents, while $570 million has been drained from our international reserve fund so far this year, in an attempt to smooth out irregularities in the dollar's fall, would the minister indicate if he feels it is likely the dollar will continue to be under pressure and to fall further, or has he been advised that it will likely stabilize at this level, as it has been reported that the Bank of Canada would like to see it hover in the 96 cent range for at least two or three months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated repeatedly to the hon. gentleman, it has not been the policy of the government, with a floating exchange rate, to indicate any particular preferred level for the dollar.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with $565 million having been drained from our United States dollar reserves, a 16 per cent drop since December, leaving about $2.8 billion in such reserves, would the minister indicate if he feels our reserves are adequate, bearing in mind that the present Canadian shortterm borrowing position in the United States is about $5.4 billion and the estimated working capital alone of U.S. corporate affiliates in this country is about $6 billion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe I rightly transmit the opinion of the Bank of Canada that the reserves are adequate.


ALLEGED PRESSURE ON PROVINCES TO REFRAIN FROM CONVERTING UNITED STATES DOLLAR PROCEEDS OF DEBT ISSUES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the minister aware that the Bank of Canada has been using moral suasion on the provinces, including Quebec, asking them to refrain from converting United States dollar proceeds from debt issues that they have placed-refrain from converting them into Canadian dollars until the time is ripe and if so, will the minister indicate why it is necessary at the present time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to see if there is any truth at all in the hon. member's allegation.


ACCURACY OF STATISTICS ON PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC- REQUEST FOR STATISTICS ON PAYMENTS TO OTHER PROVINCES
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of a recent private report which stated that the province of Quebec made a $3 billion profit from confederation last year, and in view of the fact that such statistics seem hard to come by, may I ask the minister if in his opinion this might be accurate and in a spirit of fairness to the province of Quebec, are the corresponding figures available for the other provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, just before I came into the House I had a chance to look briefly at the article to which the hon. member referred. Many of the figures of course are available from currently published figures of the government of Canada, particularly with regard to taxation and public transfers. Some of the figures involved in the account represent judgments by the author of the article as to how certain elements such as value of payrolls and national debt should be divided between the provinces. This is necessarily an arbitrary area and there is great difficulty making the calculation. I would say probably it would not be helpful to attempt to do that for all the provinces. Personally, 1 look upon Candda as being something more than a good balance sheet from one province to another.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the government House leader follows on some of the earlier questions. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman when he is going to initiate a system of providing information to this country so that we will not have a repetition of the shameful situation today with regard to the CAN DU and Boeing matters, when we in this parliament and in this country had to go outside Canada to find out what is going on in the country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we provided a reference to the Public Accounts Committee. We have given every possible assistance to the Public Accounts Committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in ferreting out information. If the reporters are more skilled, more perceptive and more intelligent than members of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that is-
March 3, 1977


An hon. Member:: Fabrication.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -unfortunate!


An hon. Member:: There were Liberals on the committee.


Mr. Clark:: Soon Radio Canada will have a Liberal majority, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and follows questions asked by the hon. member for Red Deer yesterday in reference to kickbacks mentioned by Mr. Justice Aylesworth and the president of Polysar. May I ask if an investigation has been started and has the minister instructed his people to find out the name of the company and the people involved in that company who got that rebate in Canada and not overseas? Surely we can investigate that.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question brought to my attention by the hon. member. I was not in the House when the question was raised by the hon. member but to my knowledge there is no such investigation going on.



INCOME TAX


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National feevenue. Yesterday in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Red Deer in reference to rebates that are questioned and questionable in evidence given in the Public Accounts Committee, she said she would certainly make sure it will be looked into. What investigation is her department carrying on to find out the same of this company, the people involved, and what kind of rebate was paid to a company in western Canada?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I transmitted the text of my answer in the House to the officials of my department. A meeting is scheduled for next week to inform me of the additional procedures which will complete the current investigations. 1 made sure those investigations were under way.
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue would tell the House and the people of Canada why that company cannot be named in the evidence in the committee and what is behind the secrecy? Why is this covered up?


Miss B6gin:: Section 231 of the Income Tax Act applies, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Some time ago, I asked him if he could inform us whether he is examining the prospects of allowing the CNR to take over ownership of British Columbia railways. Would the minister be in a position today to enlighten the House and the people of British Columbia, in light of the intensive discussions that have been going on with that government and its officials, whether the federal government through the CNR or any other agency is prepared to participate in the creation of an infrastructure and resource access in northeastern British Columbia? Can he tell us whether the arrangements that have been worked out include the assumption of ownership of some or all the assets of British Columbia railways?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course we are very interested in the development of resources in northern British Columbia and are discussing the various possible routes to accomplish that with British Columbians. We have not had discussions, beyond the mere mention of the subject, of any change in the ownership or operation of the British Columbia railroad. The British Columbia government, of course, has created a commission in connection with that railway operation and I imagine anything to be done would await the outcome of that.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could I ask the minister under what time frame the officials of his department and other departments of government would be working, particularly in light of the serious economic situation in central northern British Columbia and the rest of Canada? Will it be this year, this month or later?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question is very broad. There are many things going on such as recent development in respect of progress on the northland road agreement in connection with the so-called northeast coal development. There are ongoing discussions with several federal departments and officials of British Columbia and with interested companies. We are looking at all aspects of the question. There is work going on on the ground with relation to the potential route for future

Oral Questions
rail development. I could go on but there is a tremendous amount being done.



TRANSFER OF ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEBT-POSSIBLE RESULTANT EXPANSION OF REGIONAL INEQUITIES

Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Halifax yesterday. Could the minister tell the House how the regions which have honoured their interest payments on public investment and which have relatively low debt will be compensated in light of the transfer of debt to equity on the St. Lawrence Seaway? In other words, is the minister not expanding regional inequities by rewarding the big spenders at the expense of those who have been responsible for a good return on investment.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I continue to find it delightful that in the Conservative party there are such distinctively different views on how they handle this particular issue.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Otto Emil Lang: The non-payment of interest was something which was particularly associated with the right hon. gentleman some time ago. What is being done in the proposed restructuring is facing the real situation and making it more realistic in the way it is carried. The interest which was not charged, and therefore was not charged against the goods over the last 20 years, surely should not be charged against the goods of today and into the future. That is the explanation for treating that interest that way.



HARBOURS


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The minister told the House he would be looking for an equity return on the restructured system. May I ask if he expects only a one per cent return on equity from the port of Vancouver and if so, will surplus earnings from west coast ports remain for the credit and use of those west coast ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the new port policy a level of return initially around that level is contemplated. I would be pleased to hear further advice from different parts of the House on that.

March 3, 1977



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Justice? In view of the statement by the attorney general of Ontario yesterday that the federal government has ducked the marijuana issue and as a result the public has been misled into believing that the marijuana laws are being enforced and the federal government has been irresponsible in that it has done nothing about it, is it the intention of the minister to decriminalize marijuana and if so, when?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I note the various remarks the attorney general made in the last 24 hours and his known ability in hockey. I would think that he has been doing some clever stick handling himself on the subject in the last 24 hours.


George Harris Hees: Now let us have an answer, Ron.


Mr. Epp:: Is it yes, or no, Ron?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Solicitor General and I have been actively considering the position put forward by the Senate some time ago in Bill S-19 and considering in what form the bill should be re-introduced into the House. We are in the process of making recommendations to our colleagues, and will be doing so shortly.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Justice agree with the attorney general of Ontario, that if marijuana is legalized, its sale should be regulated as the sale of liquor is regulated under the Ontario Liquor laws?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would not want-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: To commit yourself.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -to comment on what the provincial attorney general suggested, either with respect to the sale and distribution of marijuana or the distribution of liquor, which is clearly within his jurisdiction. As he clearly indicated we shall have to make a decision as to what the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act or the Food and Drugs Act ought to be, and we are now in the process of so doing.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister can advise the House
March 3, 1977

if he has received a recommendation from the Foreign Investment Review Agency regarding the proposed take-over of Jasper Sky-Trams by Brewster Transport, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Greyhound of the U.S.A. What was the recommendation of FIRA and what is the policy of the government of Canada concerning the foreign acquisition of facilities in Canadian national parks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the application was rejected this morning.


George Harris Hees: I'll bet it was done five minutes ago, Jean, otherwise you knew you would get hell.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, judging by the noise, one would think it was Friday, it being Thursday, may I ask my colleague, the government House leader, what business he proposes for the balance of this week, and can he tell us what will happen next week as far as he can determine?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today we shall continue debating the amendments to the National Transportation Acl. Tomorrow is an allotted day. If today's debate does not conclude, we shall continue it on Monday. Tuesday is to be another allotted day, and on Wednesday I propose to call the report stage and third reading of the amendments to the Social Security Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I assume that when the minister announced Tuesday as an allotted day, he was saying that it is to be so designated. That day has been assigned to our party. Also, may I ask him the question I asked this morning during the House leaders' meeting. He may tell me that I know the answer. Perhaps some day we will get a responsible answer. Where, on his list of items of business, is Bill C-30 having to do with Heritage Day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Day bill is on the list, but far down because we missed the crucial date for 1977. It will probably be called when there is some understanding amoung the parties that we can deal with it quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there is considerable speculation about who stands in the way of the passing of the bill, will the minister call it in an attempt to find out if there is any opposition, because he knows that we want to pass it quickly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue would not want to leave the wrong impression. I appreciate that anything
Unemployment Insurance Act
a company or person includes on an income tax form is confidential, and 1 am sure the minister, as well as the Solicitor General understood that my questions about rebates and pay-offs involving a western Canadian company had nothing to do with confidentiality under the Income Tax Act. I refer to a short answer given in committee involving a customer who has a subsidiary in western Canada and to whom one of those questionable rebates was paid. I am sure the Minister of National Revenue would not want to hide behind the income tax regulations by suggesting that something questionable and illegal is confidential.


Hon.   Monique@: On
the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to insist that Section 241-1 may have said 231-of the Income Tax Act deals with the confidentiality of information concerning Canadians' incomes.
1 suggest-and I feel that the matter is serious enough to insist on this-that the Minister of National Revenue must see to it that Canadian taxpayers are not deprived of sums of money which belong to the public treasury. It is my duty to demand, in the case of pay-offs, that the instructions issued by my department be strictly enforced, that the names and addresses of all agents as well as the reasons for all expenses be submitted, and that the amounts payable to the Department of National Revenue on these pay-offs be duly paid.
When we have reasons to suspect someone, we carry out an investigation within my department, as provided under the Income Tax Act, or in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it is only when we feel that the evidence warrants it that we lay charges under the Criminal Code through the Minister of Justice or under the Income Tax Act. Then and only then is the information made public.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-403, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (disentitlement by age or pension).
Mr. Speaker, in short this bill tends to correct injustice towards senior citizens and enable them to get, as they did before 1976, unemployment insurance benefits, that is to say according to the number of weeks they were entitled to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 3, 1977
Official Languages

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-404, to prohibit aid to foreign countries violating human rights.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to guarantee the historical commitment of Canada to fundamental human rights and liberties. It would ensure that Canada does not, by means of economic aid or benefit, give support to any regime which consistently violates the basic norms of human dignity. It is similar to at least three items of legislation passed by the United States Congress between 1974 and 1976 and the initiative taken last week by the Carter administration.


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

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would seek to return to the item of tabling of documents. I have a document which concerns the House. It has to do with the Commissioner of Official Languages. I apologize for not having caught Your Honour's eye at the proper moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to return to tabling of documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of a letter from the Commissioner of Official Languages expressing his wish to resign that position, and my reply to him.

My answer is self-explanatory. However all members of the House will surely wish to join me in paying a sincere tribute to Mr. Spicer for his outstanding contribution for promoting better understanding between all Canadians.
(Mr. Lavoie.)


AGRICULTURE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion standing in my name referring an agricultural item to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I have had some discussions and I understand that this motion would pass without debate. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture inquire into the marketing of beef and veal and for that purpose that it review the report of the "Commission of Inquiry into the Marketing of Beef and Veal, 1976".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 151, 333, 371, 652, 820, 821, 836,852, 853, 1,021, 1,022, 1,032, 1,041, 1,213, 1,297, 1,362, 1,371, 1,382, 1,383, 1,384, 1,385, 1,455, 1,507, 1,632, 1,762, 1,770, 1,774, 1,778 and 1,791.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 151
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1 and 2.
March 3, 1977

Date of Contract	Contractor
June 5/75 to March 31/76 May 29/75 to April 76 May 22/75 to April 76	E. Crown R. Gerstein M. Belanger
May 22/75 to March 31/76	R. Bromstein
April 16/75 to January 76	N. Williams
June 23/75 to May 31/76	M. Trebilcock
July 10/75 to April 76	L. A. Skeoch
June 5/75 to December 31/75	*R. Savitt
July 14/75 to September 30/75	D. Smith
May 22/75 to July 76	Scarlato Ltd.
May 27/75 to September 5/75 January 76 to May 31/76	H. M. Giroux M. Trebilcock
April 75 to June 75	P. Hogg
June 5/75 to September 77	M. Irwin
May 22/75 to July 75	H. Steele
May 20/75 to August 20/75	*R. Timberg
May 12/75 to January 31/76	*L. Roine
May 7/75 to January 31 /76	*P. Sigurdson
May 6/75 to January 31/76	*C. Tuohy
May 5/75 to September 30/75	*L. Romero
April 28/75 to January 31/76	*P. Slayton
May 7/75 to October 31/75	*H. Mitchell
May 8/75 to January 31 /76	*A. Wolfson
May 7/75 to September 30/75	*ARA Consultants Ltd.
June 18/75 to February 29/76	*W. T. Stanbury
October 10/75 to April 15/76	M. Boyer
November 18/75 to January 30/76	Sores Inc.
March 3/76 to March 31/76	O. P. Tangri
August 1/75 to December 31/75	*C. S. Axworthy
May 12/75 to September 12/75	L. Bernier
May 7/75 to October 31/75	*L. Bohnen
Order Paper Questions
Contract
Contract Description	Value
Research on Fires in Alberta involving textiles.	16,000
Consultant services regarding	children program.	2,000
Consulting Services in the preparation of
proposals relating to the Stage II revision of the
Combines Investigation Act.	5,000
Consulting Services in the preparation of
proposals relating to revisions of the Combines
Investigation Act.	6,500
Preparation of a study and legislative proposals
on class actions under the Combines
Investigation Act.	18,500
Preparation of a report on the substantive, procedural and remedial aspects of providing a civil unfair trade practice power in the
Combines Investigation Act.	16,000
Report relating to the matters in the Stage II
revision of the Combines Investigation Act.	62,000
To carry out a study of available methodologies
for measuring the effectiveness of Consumer
Protection programmes.	3,500
To research organized groups and economic
power as they relate to public policies which
might be developed to deal more effectively with
them.	5,000
Consulting Services in the preparation of
proposals relating to Stage II revision of the
Combines Investigation Act.	5,000
Research into a Combines Investigation Inquiry.	2,500
Consultation and advice with respect to class
actions.	5,000
Conduct research on various questions relating
to the constitutionality of Bill C-2.	5,000
To provide economic advice with respect to the
Bell-Northern research inquiry under the
Combines Investigation Act.	22,000
To provide expert economic advice and opinions in respect to an investigation under the
Combines Investigation Act.	5,000
Research and assistance in the preparation of a
bibliography of literature relating to consumer
interest in the professions.	2,100
To carry out a study on the possibilities of the
use of mediation and/or arbitration as a process
for the resolution of consumer disputes.	5,500
To carry out a study of Small Claims Court in
Canada	6,000
To carry out a study of the political economy of
the self-regulating professions in conjunction
with A. Wolfson.	4,000
To carry out a study of federal-provincial
relations in the field of Consumer Protection.	3,000
To carry out a study on the implications of
existing structures in professional education for
the consumer interest.	5,500
To carry out a study on citizen access to
government information.	9,340
To carry out a study of the political economy of
the self-regulating professions in conjunction
with C. Tuohy.	4,000
To prepare a study of human capital analysis
techniques as they relate to the professions.	17,000
To carry out a study on the impact of business
interests on Canadian Competition Policy.	5,000
Research into the effects of fraudulent
commercial practices.	17,000
Research into the policy of grants to consumer
organizations.	8,800
Research on vertical integration in the food
industry.	6,900
To carry out a study on co-operatives in the
Maritime Provinces in conjunction with J. E.
Rowcraft.	4,000
To compile an inventory of provincial legislation with regard to the professions.	3,200
To carry out a study on the sociology of the
professions.	2,000

March 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Date of Contract	Contractor	Contract Description	Contract ValueMay 8/75 to July 15/76	*R. Cohen	To carry out a study on a conceptual overview of	March 15/76 to August 31/76	*W. J. Klein	consumer redress mechanisms. To carry out a study on human capital analysis	5,500June 5/75 to February 1 /76	*J. Lemay	of the 1971 Census tapes. To carry out a study on legal aid programs.	5,000 4,150May 8/75 to January 31/76	*J. Liefeld	To carry out a study on product information	October 1/75 to March 15/76	*J. Morris	preferences of the disadvantaged consumer. To carry out a study on the consumer interest in	8,855August 1/75 to December 31/75	*J. E. Rowcraft	Canadian Food Policy. To carry out a study on co-operatives in the	9,900April 21/75 to February 17/76	L. Link	Maritime Provinces in conjunction with C. S. Axworthy. Research into design and format of Bankruptcy	4,000June 18/75 to February 29/76	*W. T. Stanbury	Branch Manual. To carry out a study on the administration and	2,000January 1/76 to April 30/76	Leetham, Simpson Ltd.	enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act in Canada. Feasibility study of streamlining the trade mark	6,925process.	21,750* Studies contracted out by the Consumer Research Council, an i	ndependent council appointed by the Minister.	3.	This information is not readily available.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government concern itself with movement in and out of the Province of Quebec by language grouping?
2.	Other than immigration policies, are any measures taken to promote or control movement on the basis of language spoken?
3.	Is any information sought between the times of the taking of the census to indicate trends in movement by language of the family?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. No. However, Bulletin 92-745 ((1.5-5) Table 13) of the 1971 Census of Canada provides data on the population five years and over by migration status, official language, age groups and sex for Canada and the provinces. It shows for example the number of persons who have moved into the Province of Quebec, cross-classified by official language, age groups and sex. No data are published for persons moving out of Quebec by language groups but this could be made available by a special tabulation.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Population estimates are made for Canada and the Province for intercensal years, and are based upon births, deaths, inter-provincial migration, immigration and emigration. However, none of these data are classified by language.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many former senior members of the Department of National Defence were put on contract by the government on their retirement from the Public Service in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 and, in each case (i) what was his or her salary at the time of retirement (ii) for how many years was he or she in the Public Service?
iMr. Abbott.}
2. For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount and to whom was it paid?
.3. How did the daily rate on contract compare with the daily rate on salary in each case?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. (a) None; (b) None; (c) None; (d) One (1975-76 fiscal year); (i) $30,500 to $37,000; (ii) 23 years.
2.	(a) To provide consulting services with respect to the development of guidelines in health research requirements, (b) 1975-76 fiscal year, (c) An amount of $12,125 was paid to the contractor. Dr. R. Bromiley.
3.	The per diem rate on contract was $125. The per diem rate on salary was approximately $130.
In so far as the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is concerned: 1. (a) None; (b) None; (c) One; )i) $23,500 to $30,000; (ii) 21 years; (d) None.
2.	(a) To provide consultation on matters relating to property management and development, (b) The contract was for 185 working days over 23 months, of which only 109.5 working days were actually used, (c) The total amount of the contract was $27,750; the actual amount paid was $16,400. The recipient was the contractor, F. D. Millar.
3.	The per diem rate on contract was $150. The per diem rate on salary was approximately $125.
All other departments and agencies have submitted Nil replies to this question.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Ministry of State for Science and Technology,
March 3, 1977

National Research Council of Canada, Science Council of Canada, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, the Department of the Secretary of State, Public Archives of Canada, National Library of Canada, National Arts Centre Corporation, Bilingual Districts Advisory Board, Canada Council, National Museums of Canada, National Film Board, Canadian Film Development Corporation and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (including term contracts) hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as: Ministry of State for Science and Technology: Hired 26; Dismissed None; Transferred 9. National Research Council of Canada: Hired 106; Dismissed None; Transferred None; Science Council of Canada: Hired 9; Dismissed None; Transferred None. Canadian Patents and Development Limited: All members of the staff of CPDL are employees of the National Research Council of Canada and seconded to CPDL, they are included in the reply made by the Council. Secretary of State: Hired 161; Dismissed None; Transferred 57. Public Archives: Hired 50; Dismissed 2; Transferred 12. National Library: Hired 42; Dismissed 2; Transferred 4. National Arts Centre: Hired 114; Dismissed 69; Transferred None. Bilingual Districts Advisory Board of Canada: Not applicable. Canada Council: Hired 27; Dismissed None; Transferred None. National Museums of Canada: Hired 64; Dismissed 1; Transferred 25. National Film Board: None. Canadian Film Development Corporation: Hired 3; Dismissed None; Transferred None. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Hired 1184; Dismissed 4; Transferred None.
Note: The figure given for appointments includes vacation relief, temporary and Olympics staff who did not become part of the CBC's permanent establishment. The number of people who left the Corporation in the same period was 1461.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a Crown corporation, considering sites in Saskatchewan for a uranium refinery and, if so (a) what sites are currently under consideration (b) have environmental impact studies been commissioned for each location and, if so (i) with whom in each instance have such studies been commissioned (ii) at what cost (iii) on what date will the studies be submitted (iv) will they be made public (v) what are the terms of reference for the studies (c) have any studies other than of an environmental nature been commissioned and, if so (i) with whom (ii) what are the terms of reference (iii) what is the cost?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a) Eldorado Nuclear Limited has publicly announced that it has acquired options to purchase 1,200 acres near Warman, Saskatchewan, so that detailed environmental studies can be conducted to determine whether the site would be suitable for a uranium refinery, (b) Arrangements for these studies now are being completed, and will be announced in early 1977. Prior to selecting the Warman site for more detailed environmental assessment, the Company conducted certain preliminary examinations of 14 possible refinery locations in 11 areas of the province. These preliminary studies were conducted with the assistance of Cambrian Engineering Ltd., which in turn retained the services of the Saskatchewan Research Council as environmental consultants.
Order Paper Questions SASKATCHEWAN URANIUM REFINERY SITE


Mr. Hnatyshyn: On what date is it expected that Eldorado Nuclear Limited will announce the selection of a site in Saskatchewan for the construction of a uranium refinery?


Alastair William Gillespie: Eldorado Nuclear Limited has publicly
announced that it has acquired options to purchase 1,200 acres near Warman, Saskatchewan, so that detailed environmental studies can be conducted to determine whether the site would be suitable for a uranium refinery. These studies will begin in early 1977, and because of their comprehensive nature must examine a wide range of environmental factors over four seasons. The results of these studies will be published in the spring of 1978 in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement, as required by the environmental assessment guidelines and criteria established by the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan. Both Governments also require that the Environmental Impact Statements be subject to public hearings, and that the public be given ample opportunity to examine the complete assessment documentation prior to the public hearings. The approval process is expected to take upwards of six months. During this period, the Company must also complete its evaluation of the amount and metallurgical nature of the potential supply of concentrates from new uranium mine-mill operations in the northern part of Saskatchewan, and reassess at that time the potential markets for refined uranium products. Therefore, because of all these factors the Company will not be in a position until the latter part of 1978, at the earliest, to announce whether it will proceed with applications to various authorities, including the Atomic Energy Control Board, for authority to construct a refinery at Warman.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What products does Eldorado Nuclear Limited plan to produce in a proposed uranium refinery in the Province of Saskatchewan, and will any such products intended for the export market be subject to government regulations?


Alastair William Gillespie: Eldorado Nuclear Limited has not yet determined whether a uranium refinery will be constructed in Saskatchewan or, if it will, what particular products will be produced. However, the environmental assessment now being arranged for a potential refinery site at Warman, Saskatchewan, assumes for the purposes of the comprehensive feasibility study being conducted that such a refinery would produce uranium hexafluoride as well as other intermediate forms of uranium. The product "mix" from a uranium refinery in Saskatchewan would depend on future market requirements as well as on the nature of uranium concentrates then available from Saskatchewan mines. Any products exported from such a refinery would require export permits under the Atomic Energy Control Act.

March 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Is the government still negotiating for the purchase of armoured cars for the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so (a) with what countries or corporations (b) what departments or agencies are involved and what is their role (c) what (i) is the nature of the machinery being evaluated (ii) are the costs involved (d) what considerations are involved when deciding from whom to purchase?
1.	If a decision has been made (a) what was it (b) how was it reached?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Negotiations have been completed, (a) General Motors has entered into an agreement with the Swiss Mowag Company to have the vehicles built in Canada under licence, (b) Department of National Defence, Department of Supply and Services-Negotiation of the terms of contract; Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-Evaluation of the project to ensure the highest practicable Canadian content is included in any contract with the manufacturer, (c) (i) Evaluation has been completed, (ii) Costs for vehicles, associated armament, repair parts, training and training equipment, ammunition, tools, federal sales tax, and transportation costs is estimated to be approximately $234 million, (d) Considerations which led to the decisions to purchase from Mowag were based on cost effectiveness, operational and technical requirements.
2.	(a) As a result of tests conducted in Canada, it was decided to purchase the Swiss Mowag Piranha 6x6, to be built in Canada by General Motors which has entered into an agreement with the Swiss Mowag Company for manufacturing this vehicle under licence, (b) See part 1(d) above.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Has Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a Crown corporation, or any other agency on its behalf, undertaken any measures designed to inform or educate residents in the vicinity of any proposed site in the Province of Saskatchewan where the corporation intends to construct a uranium refinery?
2.	Have residents in the vicinity of any proposed site on which Eldorado Nuclear Limited may build a uranium refinery been taken by the corporation or any agency of the government or the Government of Saskatchewan to view any other uranium refinery and, if so, what are the (a) details of such trips (b) costs involved?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. Eldorado Nuclear Limited is committed to a comprehensive information program with regard to its activities and plans in Saskatchewan. In this connection, the Company has recently opened an office in Saskatoon, and has issued a number of press releases concerning its capital expenditure program at Beaverlodge and the environmental assessment of a potential refinery site at Warman, north of Saskatoon. This program of public information will be accelerated during 1977, and in the spring of 1978 the Company will publish the detailed results of its Environmental Impact assessment. This report will be subject to public hearings, and no decision to proceed with any such refinery will be made until the public concerned has had ample opportunity to examine these studies and express a view on the project.

2.	Certain landowners in the Warman area visited the Company's refinery at Port Hope, Ontario during negotiations for options on ther property. These negotiations were conducted on behalf of Eldorado Nuclear Limited by the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation, and arrangements for the Port Hope visit were made by the latter organization as part of its agency agreement with Eldorado Nuclear. Details of these commercial transactions are proprietary.


Mr. Howie: In each year as of November 1 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many persons were receiving unemployment insurance from offices in (i) Fredericton (ii) Woodstock (iii) Minto, New Brunswick?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned:
(a)	(b)	(c)1974	1975	1976(i)	Fredericton	2450	3146	3226'(ii)	Woodstock	1193	1493	1737(iii)	Minto	335	404	397
* Please note, the geographical boundaries used in written Question No. 1,021 do not correspond to the boundaries used in written Question No. 1,022.


Mr. Howie: In each year as of November 1 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many persons were registered for work in each of the manpower offices located in (i) Woodstock (ii) Fredericton (iii) Minto, New Brunswick?
Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration):			
Woodstock	Fredericton	MintoNovember 1974	747	3146	663November 1975	962	3645	714November 1976	818	4173	720
* Please note, the geographical boundaries used in written Question No. 1,022 do not correspond to the boundaries used in written Question No. 1,021.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Has the government initiated a policy of waste-paper re-cycling as a means of conserving energy and our forests and, if so, what is it?
2.	What incentives has the government given to the paper industry to use more post-consumer waste-paper in production?
3.	What incentives has the government given to buyers to use re-cycled paper products in manufacturing?
4.	For the fiscal year 1975-76, were any new export markets discovered for re-cycled paper and, if so, what are they?
5.	For the fiscal year 1975-76, what percentage of paper consumed domestically was re-cycled?
March 3, 1977

6.	Do quotas exist to regulate the amount of re-cycled paper which must be ordered by the government and, if so, what are they?
7.	What was the total cost of paper products consumed by the government in the fiscal year 1975-76?
8.	What percentage of paper products consumed by the government in the fiscal year 1975-76 were re-cycled?
9.	Does the government consider overpackaging of products to be a significant contributor to the problem of waste control and, if so, what regulations exist to control the amount of (a) material used (b) re-cycled paper which must be used, in the packaging of products?
10.	Is the government funding any independent research on solid waste disposal and, if so (a) with whom (b) in what amounts?
11.	Does the government consider that the long-term success of re-cycling depends largely on improving processes of recovering materials and creating products from them and, if so, does the government intend to accelerate the research, development and technology of resource recovery especially to encourage the recovery of resources in municipal wastes?
12.	Does the government have a definite strategy in regard to pollution abatement assistance or incentive programmes because of the millions of dollars that the pulp and paper industry must allocate to air/ water pollution control in upcoming years, and considering the decreasing funds offered under DP AT?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Supply and Services as follows: 1. As a matter of policy, the Department of the Environment supports waste paper and other materials re-cycling, as a means of conserving energy and other resources; as a way to lessen total environmental impacts; and does so in all cases where it has been shown that these benefits occur.
2 and 3. The government has not given direct incentives to either the paper industry or to buyers. However, the government has provided indirect incentives, by eliminating the federal sales tax on equipment and materials used by the commercial processors and re-cyclers of reclaimed waste paper.
4.	No export markets have yet been determined specifically for re-cycied paper, however, waste paper is used as a portion of the fibre furnished by some newsprint manufacturers. The majority of newsprint produced in Canada is sold on export markets. Funds are available to the industry for export market identification and marketing adjustment under the Program for Export Market Development (PEMD) which is administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
5.	Re-cycling rates are traditionally calculated from data based on calendar rather than fiscal years. The latest full year for which complete data is available is 1973. The percentage of domestically consumed paper that was re-cycled in that year is approximately 18 per cent.
6.	Quotas on re-cycled paper ordered by the government do not exist. However, the Departments of the Environment and Supply and Services are in the process of reviewing paper product specifications with the paper industry, with a view to increasing the use of re-cycled waste paper in government purchased paper products.
7.	The value of paper purchased during 1975-76, for use for printing, duplicating, photocopying and typing is calculated at $11,800,000. The value of manufactured paper products such
Order Paper Questions
as pads, folders, etc., purchased through DSS in 1975-76 is calculated at $3,575,246.
8.	National data is not presently available. However, in the 1975 calendar year, in the National Capital Area, approximately 30 per cent of the available waste paper in the government waste stream was re-cycled.
9.	The Department of the Environment considers that the packaging of products contributes significantly to the municipal solid waste problems across the country. However, overpackaging is far less significant a contributor. Notwithstanding the subjective nature of deciding what is and what is not overpackaged, overpackaging tends to be product specific. No regulations exist to control the amount of material used or the amount of re-cycled paper contained in packaging.
10.	The department of the Environment has funded in the past and is currently funding, outside the Department, research on solid waste disposal. A detailed listing of the work, the contractors and the amounts of the funding follows.
11.	The long-term success of re-cycling depends on both an increased demand for recovered secondary materials and an improved processing of the supply of these materials. The Department of the Environment supports in principle research and development efforts to encourage the recovery of resources in municipal wastes. Unfortunately, funds available from within the department for this purpose are limited. Canada is a net importer of waste paper due to factors such as our population density and systems to collect and segregate mixed waste grades all of which limit available domestic waste paper supplies. The long term success of re-cycling of waste paper is seen to depend on the cost of systems to obtain adequate supplies of waste fibre, the cost of processing systems and market demands relative to product quality. The industry is eligible for assistance in these areas under the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT). This program in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provides assistance by supporting development work in the areas of new or improved products for commercial markets.
12.	The Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance (ACCA) Program has been in existence for a number of years to assist industries in installing air and water pollution abatement equipments and facilities. The Minister of Finance announced in the House of Commons on November 19, 1976, the extension of the ACCA Program for one more year. The fund allocation for DPAT during 1977-78 will be the same as in 1976-77, but the cash available for new projects in the coming year will be reduced due to prior commitment on multiyear projects. This program is for development and demonstration of new Pollution Abatement Technology.

March 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Project	Contractor	1976/77 Dollar Value1.	National municipal solid waste generation data base	Bird and Hale	$85,0002.	Aluminum and copper recycling	F. T. Gerson	6,0003.	Combined municipal refuse and sludge disposal	U. of British Columbia	25,00004.	Leachate recirculation	Levelton & Associates	5,0005.	Attenuation of leachate Gartner lee & Assoc.	45,0006.	Soil/Waste Interaction Rovers & Associates	6,0007.	Heat Recovery Solid Wastes (Quebec)	Roche & Assoc.	13,0008.	Industrial waste	Ontario Research	28,000exchange	Foundation	9.	Rubber recovery-tires	Undecided	total value not(Prairies)	finalized-joint funding with 3 provinces DFE share $20,00010.	At source waste paper	To be finalized	10,000 with jointrecovery	funding from Manitoba11.	Rural collection systems	J. F. McLaren	14,00012.	Product durability	Stevenson Kellogg	20,000-joint funding with EMR, C.C.A.13.	Eastern Canada waste	Yet to be finalized	total costs to be sharedpaper recycling	with DSS, EMR, DREE and DFE14.	Land disposal P.C.B.'s	Yet to be finalized	not yet finalizedTotal of 12 outside contracts worth approximately	$263,000and 2 contracts yet to be finalized, estimated value	$ 46,000Total Estimate	$309,000


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1975, has the Province of New Brunswick made any request for financial assistance for the construction of (a) a ring road around Fredericton (b) highway improvement between Fredericton and Saint John (c) improving the highway at Geary in Sunbury County and, if so, in each case, what was the dollar value of such request and what was the government's response?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and Transport Canada as follows: (a) No. (b) Yes. Dollar value of request is 90 percent of: (i) Fredericton, Geary, $21.2 million; (ii) Geary, Welsford, $5.0 million; (iii) Welsford, Saint John, $24.0 million. Total Project Cost $50.2 million; Total value of request $45.18 million. The projects outlined above are included in a joint submission presented to the Minister of Transport earlier this year by the four Atlantic provinces. The Government of Canada has not given a definitive response to date because the submission is presently being evaluated, (c) The Province of New Brunswick has asked Transport Canada for assistance in the construction of the Geary Bypass and the upgrading and paving of Route 7 between Geary and Welsford (see (b)).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the annual cost of the public affairs programme "Platform CBC"?
2.	How many Programmes are scheduled in a year?
3.	What has been the individual Programme cost since January 1, 1976?
4.	Since January 1, 1976, how many Members of Parliament of the government party have been panelists on the Programme and how many of these were Ministers of the Crown?
[Mr. Goodale.)
5.	Since January 1, 1976, how many Members of Parliament of the opposition parties have been panelists on the Programme?
6.	What are the gross receipts since January 1, 1976, from advertising on the Programme?
7.	What is the audience rating as a percentage of those that can receive the Programme?
8.	What is the air time of the Programme as a percentage of the total air time of the stations carrying the Programme?
9.	Is it the policy of CBC to show a balanced viewpoint of the Programme?
10.	Are panelists other than Members of Parliament chosen and, if so, on what basis?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such information as the cost of programs. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
2.	Sixteen.
3.	See reply to part 1 above.
4.	Ten. No ministers.
5.	Eight.
6.	Nil. The program does not carry advertising.
7.	Averaged throughout the hour that it is broadcast, Platform has a weekly audience of just over 8,000 viewers. Since it is not known how many people are still awake and hence available for viewing at this hour on a Sunday evening, it is not possible to express this 8,000 as "a percentage of those that can receive the program". Platform's audience does, however, represent about 20 per cent of the total viewing audience in the Ottawa metro area at this hour, and about 25 per cent of the audience viewing English-language stations.
8.	The program is produced by CBOT Ottawa and, through the CBC's Regional Exchange system, is also carried on other individual CBC stations but not on the CBC network. CBOT Ottawa (2 hours of 115 hours each week for 16 weeks) .017 per cent; CBOT Ottawa (42 hours of 5,228 hours each year) .008,per cent; Other CBC stations and services (12 hours of 5,550 hours each year) .002 per cent.
9.	As much as possible, but not on the panel, which usually reflects one viewpoint. Panel members may invite eight supporters to participate from the audience; CBC invites 12 people known to either oppose or have a particular interest in the topic as audience participants. There is space for approximately 20 other members of the general public in the audience.
10.	Yes. On the basis of their knowledge of, experience with, or interest in the subject.


Mr. Fairweather: Does Canada intend to establish an embassy in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and, if so, on what date?
March 3, 1977


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canada is developing bilateral relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and recognizes the long-term value of establishing an embassy in Hanoi. However, due to present budgetary restraint we will not be able to give consideration to opening an embassy in Hanoi in the immediate future. The Canadian Ambassador resident in Peking is, however, accredited to Vietnam; he and members of his staff pay regular visits to Hanoi.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Are there plans for the enlargement of postal facilities and operations in the City of Moncton, the Town of Riverview and the Town of Dieppe in New Brunswick and, if so (a) what are they (b) what are the time schedules?
2.	(a) For what reason are so many people who have addressed their mail to certain rural routes in the Moncton area having their mail returned marked "address unknown" (b) are any steps being taken to advise the public how to address their mail (c) is mail being returned if the postal code is not marked on the address?
3.	(a) How can the ordinary citizen obtain a postal code for a specific address (b) is this made known to the public generally?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Yes (a) A new Mail Processing Plant is to be constructed which will serve the City of Moncton, the Town of Riverview and the Town of Dieppe. It will also act as a Gateway Postal Facility and Distribution Centre, (b) This Mail Processing Plant, which will be located in the Dieppe Industrial Park, is scheduled for completion late in 1979. Front Office services will also be provided from this facility. At the same time, the present Post Office in downtown Moncton will retain Front Office and possibly Letter Carrier Delivery services. Future plans call for the construction of a Postal Station in the Riverview area in 1980. However, this is subject to change depending upon further investigation once the new Mail Processing Plant in Dieppe becomes operational.
2.	(a) It is difficult to comment on this question without having more precise information. However, it may be that the people experiencing problems were some of those formerly served by Moncton R.R. No. 1 and parts of R.R. Nos. 3 and 8 who were changed over to Letter Carrier Delivery. The change was made on R.R. No. 1 during 1974, and on R.R. Nos. 3 and 8 in 1975. (b) At the time of the changes, customers were given written notice of their new addresses, including postal codes and a supply of announcement cards for advising correspondents of their new addresses. The program was repeated at a later date and, in addition, directory service is still being provided, (c) Mail is not returned because of omission of postal code.
3.	(a) An ordinary citizen can obtain a postal code for a specific address by contacting his local post office, (b) This information has been made known to the public by various advertising campaigns.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, how many applications have been (a) received (b) approved in the Province of Quebec for research and research-related projects in the areas of (i) fitness (ii) physical recreation (iii) amateur sport?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: During 1970-71 to 1975-76 inclusive, the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch provided contributions only for external research projects initiated by the branch. This was due to program changes brought about by such reports as the Report of the Task Force on Sport for Canadians and the P. S. Ross Report.
Number of Projects	Fiscal Year	Recipients(0 2	1975-76	Centre de Recherche des Sciences de la Sante, Universite du Quebec.1974-75	International Congress ofthrough	Physical Activity1976-77	Sciences-Quebec City.(ii) 2	1971-72	National Study on thethrough	Supply of Sport and1974-75	Recreation Facilities(Federal support for Quebec portion of the study)(iii) none	1975-76	Universite Laval
In the 1976-77 fiscal year, a program of support for research in fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport resumed, (a) Number of applications received, 7 (b) Number of applications approved, 2 (i) 1 (Contribution to Professor Alex Wright of Concordia University for "An Assessment of the Effects of a Developmental Motor Activity Program on the Self Image of Aged Females") (ii) none, (iii) 1 (Contribution to Dr. Pierre Lagasse of the Universite Laval for the "La Stimulation filectrique: Ses Influences sur l'Apprentissage d'un Geste Sportif et sur la Performance Sportive.)


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Was radioactive fallout from the November 1976 nuclear tests in China detected in Canada and, if so (a) in what locations (b) in what amounts (c) what action, if any, was taken?


Marc Lalonde: Radiactive fallout from the November 17, 1976, Chinese atmospheric nuclear weapons test was detected in 15 locations in Canada.
(a) and (b) Location
Coral Harbour, N.W.T. Edmonton, Alta. Fredericton, N.B. Halifax, N.S.
Inuvik, N.W.T. Montreal, P.Q. Moosonee, Ont.
Maximum levels of gross beta radioactivity measured in surface air
0.18 pCi/m3
0.32 pCi/m3 0.17 pCi/m3 0.23 pCi/m3 0.16 pCi/m3 0.25 pCi/m3 0.16 pCi/m3

March 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
(a) and (b) Location
Maximum levels of gross beta radioactivity measured in surface air
Ottawa, Ont. Quebec, P.Q. Regina, Sask. Saskatoon, Sask. Toronto, Ont. Windsor, Ont. Vancouver, B.C. Winnipeg, Man.
0.19 pCi/m3 0.13 pCi/m3 0.36 pCi/m3 0.26 pCi/m3 0.16 pCi/m3 0.18 pCi/m3 0.18 pCi/m3 0.21 pCi/m3
(c) As these levels were low and quickly diminished because they were due to fresh fission products with short half-lives, they were of negligible concern to public health.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Does the government or any of its agencies, set specific levels in Canada at which radioactive fallout is considered harmful to the public, wildlife or domestic animals and, if so (a) what are the levels (b) do the levels differ from those specified by the United States?


Marc Lalonde: (a) Radiation at any level is considered harmful in some degree. However, fallout is not subject to domestic control at source and the available counter-measures carry their own adverse health consequences. Therefore, protective actions must be based on a balancing of risks. Radiological health effects depend on the physical and chemical characteristics of the radioactive element involved, their mode of entry into the body and their deposition and retention in specific organs. For tropospheric fallout, iodine-131 is the element of greatest concern; for stratospheric fallout, the concern is chiefly with strontium-90. For both, the principal mode of entry into the body is by the consumption of milk. The amount taken into the body via other foods, drinking water and air is relatively small. The maximum permissible levels in milk, as derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, are 2,000 picocuries of iodine-131 per litre and 400 picocuries of strontium-90 per litre. The corresponding maximum permissible levels in air are 300 picocuries of iodine-131 per cubic metre and 40 picocuries of strontium-90 per cubic metre. For the complex mixture of radionuclides in fresh fallout in air, it is estimated that the equivalent level for gross beta radio-activity is about 2,500 picocuries per cubic metre. On this basis, it is considered that for short-term transient fallout exposures, levels in milk should not exceed the above value. However, if a period of widespread, long-term fallout was in prospect, more restrictive levels, approximately W of the above, would be specified to conform with the recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection relating to the continuous exposure of a whole population, (b) The relevant United States levels are expressed in different terms, but in application do not differ significantly. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended graded scales of action if the total intake of a radionuclide from air, water and food falls within certain ranges. Range III, which requires consideration of possible counter-measures (other than surveillance), is 100-1,000 picocuries per day for iodine-131 and 200-2,000 picocuries

per day for strontium-90. These levels relate to average intakes by members of a sample population and they may be further averaged over a period of one year to allow for transient fluctuations.


M. Hnatyshyn: What action, if any, does the government consider it necessary that should be taken if radioactive fallout levels become dangerously high in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: If the level of iodine-131 in milk reached the level at which countermeasures became necessary, liquid milk would be withdrawn from the market and substituted by powdered milk which had been produced prior to the appearance of fresh fallout or which had been stored for a length of time sufficient to allow the short lived iodine-131 to decay. The permissible level for strontium-90 would not be reached unless there was continued nuclear weapons testing for a long time. Strontium 90 can be removed from milk by central processing. Technically, the treatment is not difficult, but its application on a national scale would involve very great expense.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are there monitoring stations in Canada measuring atmospheric fallout from nuclear bomb tests which take place in other countries and, if so (a) where are they located (b) under what jurisdiction do they fall (c) is the monitoring going on continuously or periodically (d) are the monitoring records available to the public (e) what are the natural background levels of radioactivity against which such fallout levels are measured at the various testing stations?


Marc Lalonde: (a) Yes. The 24 monitoring stations at which samples of radioactivity in surface air and precipitation are collected are located as follows: Calgary, Alta.; Coral Harbour, N.W.T.; Edmonton, Alta.; Fort Churchill, Man.; Fredericton, N.B.; Goose Bay, Nfld.; Halifax, N.S.; Inuvik, N.W.T.; Montreal, P.Q.; Moosonee, Ont.; Ottawa, Ont.; Quebec, P.Q.; Regina, Sask.; Resolute, N.W.T.; St. John's, Nfld.; Saskatoon, Sask.; Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.; Thunder Bay, Ont.; Toronto, Ont.; Vancouver, B.C.; Whitehorse, Yukon; Windsor, Ont.; Winnipeg, Man.; Yellowknife, N.W.T. (b) The sampling equipment and the program are under the jurisdiction of the Health Protection Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare. The samplers are located at meteorological stations operated by the Atmospheric Environment Service, Department of the Environment whose staff collect and send samples to the Ottawa Laboratory of the Radiation Protection Bureau, (c) Air Particulates are collected continuously at the sampling stations. The measurement of the collected deposit, however, is carried out daily, instead of weekly, during periods of fresh fallout, (d) Yes. (e) The levels of radioactivity in surface air due to residual fallout remaining from previous nuclear weapons tests averaged 0.04 picocuries per cubic metre
March 3, 1977

of air in 1975. The range observed was from 0.02 to 0.07 picocuries per cubic meter varying with location and season.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	What is the total annual expenditure by the Department of National Health and Welfare, in the Province of British Columbia for family planning and sex education?
2.	What is the total cost to date and what is the future estimate of costs for the distribution of the information kit on sex education in British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: 1. 1975-76, $108,668. 1976-77, Statistics on the total amounts granted to agencies and universities in British Columbia for the purpose-of family planning and sex education will not be available until the end of this fiscal year.
2. Statistics are not available on the provincial distribution pattern of the publication entitled. "Sex Education-A Teachers Guide". Since copies were distributed on the basis of individual requests from British Columbia, neither the total cost to date, nor the future estimated cost can be determined.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many inspectors are employed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ensure that the Order in Council respecting bilingual labelling of all products sold in Canada is followed?
2.	(a) How many cases have been investigated (b) how many violations were discovered (c) how many charges have been laid?
3.	What is the routine procedure followed by the Department to enforce the Order in Council?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs employs 197 inspectors across Canada who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that a wide range of products comply with the requirements of 9 Acts and Regulations. Part of the requirements of the legislation relates to bilingual labelling.
2.	(a) and (b) As Inspectors are carrying out surveillance with respect to the many requirements of the legislation, not just solely bilingual labelling, it is impossible to determine how many cases specifically regarding bilingual labelling have been investigated, (c) No charges have been laid with respect to bilingual labelling violations.
3.	The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs conducts scheduled inspections of firms at all levels of trade with regard to all requirements of the legislation. This involves taking samples, examining lables, verifying net quantity, checking certain products against required grade standards, and other similar actions. Emphasis is put on educating the trade in order to achieve voluntary compliance. It is to be emphasized that these are general procedures with respect to all requirements of the legislation, not just solely bilingual labelling requirements.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) What is the total number of veterans in the Province of Quebec who receive pensions from the government (b) what is the annual total cost of such pensions?
2.	(a) What is the total number of veterans in the Province who receive War Veterans Allowances or other allowances from the Department of Veterans Affairs (b) what is the annual total cost of such allowances?
3.	How many employees of the Department are located in the Province and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. * 3
	(a)	(b)
Disability pensioners	13,450	$30,985,333Dependants	2,492	11,852,427Total	15,942	42,837,760(a)	(b)War veterans allowance and civilian	6,399	23,084,380war allowance recipients Assistance Fund recipients	3,813	1,842,295Education Assistance recipients	137	139,439(children) Treatment allowances	*	710,000Total	10,349	$25,776,114
* Treatment allowances are not of a continuing nature. Disability pensioners are paid the difference between a 100% pension and their actual rate of pension for any period of time in which they require medical treatment related to disability.
3. Employees: 2,220; Payroll: $33,51 1,379.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, who performed services during (a) 1975 (b) 1976 for the National Energy Board and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: In so far as National Energy Board is concerned: none.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, who performed services during (a) 1975 (b) 1976 for the Farm Credit Corporation and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: Cecil Branson, Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow, 505-645 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C. V8W 1G2. Fees

March 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
paid to lawyers used in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia by Farm Credit Corporation are paid as follows: (i) by the borrowers upon their direction out of the proceeds of the mortgage loans in which case Farm Credit Corporation does not maintain records of amounts so paid; (ii) by Farm Credit Corporation on mortgage proceedings, nil.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, who performed services during (a) 1975 (b) 1976 for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a), (b) Nil.
US/CANADA TRANSIT PIPELINE TREATY


Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What effect will the US-Canada Pipeline Treaty have on municipalities or provinces wishing to tax relevant pipelines?
2.	What is the taxation status of the pipeline cost under the terms of the Treaty?


Fernand-E. Leblanc: 1 and 2. Article III. 1 of the Canada/U.S. Transit Pipeline Treaty signed January 28, 1977, awaiting ratification before entry into force, specifically mentions the rights of public authorities, which could include provinces and municipalities, to impose a fee, duty, tax or other monetary charge on or for the use of any transit pipeline. The only limitation on such taxes or other charges would be that they also be applicable to or for the use of similar pipelines located within the jurisdiction of the public authority in question.


Mr. Herbert: Has the government studied the possibility that the preponderance of Francophones in bilingual positions in many departments could be reducing the proportion of first generation descendants of these French mother tongue public servants who claim or use French as their mother tongue?


Robert Knight Andras: No.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions listed by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Are the others allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that apparently a couple of things that happened yesterday
(Mr. Whelan.)
caused him to really get moving and answer eight of my questions.


Ralph Goodale: That had nothing to do with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 2, 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.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before the debate ended yesterday I had a few brief moments in which to commence my remarks concerning the national transportation bill. At that time, having heard several members who sometimes support the government in this House deplore the fact that the government is reneging-and having listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) with respect to their $290 million commitment to help urban transit in this country-I invited the Minister of Finance, who 1 hope will accept this invitation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and other members who are now trying to get on the right side of this issue to turn up at the Toronto Union station at 8 a.m. on March 14 to see first-hand the congestion that exists in the metropolitan Toronto area as far as commuters are concerned. That invitation does not come just from me; it also comes from the regional chairmen in that area who are sending wires to most of the affected members of this House asking them to join with those chairmen on Monday morning, March 14, to see first-hand the situation that this government is helping to leave in the Toronto area concerning commuter travel.
For the record, I should read the telegram that is being sent out by Paul Godfrey, chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto council. The telegram reads:
Deep concern over the federal announcement that funds for urban transit are not to be made available. Request you to join me and the regional chairmen from the regions surrounding metro on Monday, March 14 at 8 a.m. at the Union station GO transit platform. We will at that time wish to discuss with you the effect the broken federal promise will have on all of us.
March 3, 1977

That shows the anxiety that now exists in the Toronto area concerning this very important matter. If I may, 1 would like very quickly to summarize where the uncertainty first arose. As most in this House realize, during the 1974 election campaign the Liberal party, seeking re-election as the government of this country, spewed forth much in the way of promises to help their way back into office. Included in those promises were very specific commitments concerning the assistance they were willing to give urban transit authorities in our various metropolitan areas. They even put a price tag on it. They said that the promises would probably represent about $290 million of federal assistance. The short fact is that government did get re-elected. Presumably those promises helped them to get re-elected. Now that they are in office with a majority, they are simply reneging on the promises they made to the Canadian electorate.
I say they reneged for this reason. I grant that there is a bit of confusion about this, but we find, in answer to questions put by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and myself, that the Minister of Finance on February 18 confirmed remarks he presumably made at a press conference the day before. For example, he stated, and I quote from page 3184 of Hansard:
-the federal government will not be able to extend its assistance to municipalities which we had hoped to assist in earlier years.
That, of course, refers to the question of funding for urban transit. As a result of that type of question I asked the minister whether he had ridden on the commuter train at rush hour going into the Toronto area in order to experience first-hand the congestion of that service. There was no meaningful comment on that, so I again reiterate the question and invite the Minister of Finance, along with his Prime Minister, to share, with other members of parliament and the local chairmen in the Toronto area, the experience of seeing how commuters in that area are now being handled because of the lack of forethought and funding for which the federal government is responsible.
Subsequent to that comment by the Minister of Finance, some confusion came into this question. In response to a question put by myself to the Prime Minister on February 25 concerning why he felt free to break his promise with regard to urban funding, the Prime Minister stated:
There has been no decision one way or another but we are keeping the various arguments in mind-
So it would appear there is hope the government may yet come to its senses. It might make the Minister of Finance look a little foolish; he spoke out of turn and he certainly did not speak wisely. I hope that whatever the background is, the goverment will acknowledge that it does have outstanding commitments to the public and that for the sake of commuters in the Montreal area, in the Toronto area, the areas of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary and other urban centres in this country which face pressing transit problems, it will live up to those commitments.
National Transportation Act
The confusion goes even deeper. Here we have a promise made in 1974. The Minister of Finance says, in effect, that the government cannot meet the promise, that it must renege. Then we find there are estimates before the House tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), and when we look at page 2762 of those estimates we see, under the heading "Urban Transit" that an expenditure of $8,136,000 is contemplated by the federal government. 1 ask this question: Who is running the show? Who, exactly, knows on any day of the week what the government intends to do with regard to this question-and, presumably, with regard to many others? Why is the government being asked to approve an expenditure of $8,136,000 in relation to urban transit when the Minister of Finance tells us there is no money available to spend on urban transportation? We are entitled to an explanation.
I see the Minister of Transport sitting in his place. I am glad he has the nerve to come here. I think he should explain, after I have sat down, why he as Minister of Transport tolerated the Minister of Finance telling us there is no money available for urban transportation while his own estimate for $8,136,000 is before the House and will, presumably, be passed unless it is defeated at some stage of the parliamentary process. In short, the government seems to be in a dither. I believe it is time an assurance was given to the various provinces and municipalities that Ottawa is willing to help out by providing some of the funding needed to ensure that those who must travel to and from work can do so by the most effective means, which is a suitable system of urban transportation.
When I speak on this subject I do so with a strong sense of deja vu. Unlike the Johnies-come-lately on the government back-benches who are only now beginning to understand the extend of the government's failure in the field of urban transit policy, we in this party have consistently pressed for common sense in this vital area. On no fewer than 90 occasions have we spoken in the House against Pickering airport. On more than 20 of those occasions I have put questions to successive ministers of transport with a view to persuading them to drop the ill-advised Pickering project and redirecting any unused funds to urban assistance. In fact, in my first speech in the House, made at the time the government could have saved many millions of dollars by shelving the Pickering airport proposal-I refer to a speech made on January 12, 1973-I put the dilemma facing the Toronto area as simply as possible. As recorded at page 251 of Hansard, I stated:
On behalf of those people let me tell the government once again, we do not need a second airport at Pickering. We do need, however, federal assistance to facilitate urban transportation.
The same is true today. Despite the promises of the Prime Minister and of no less than four ministers in his cabinet, there has been no substantial contribution to urban transportation in Toronto. In fact, the total federal government's contribution to date in Ontario has been one $10 million grant to cover rolling stock for the Richmond Hill GOline. In contrast, Ontario has spent nearly $429 million since 1964 to support urban transit. Beyond that, the provincial municipalities have spent $90 million annually to meet their transit needs.

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
Clearly, the government is turning its back on the 75 per cent of our population who live in Canadian urban centres. On the other hand, the same government has spent more than $110 million for land development and management at Pickering, and has lost an additional $130 million in two years at Mirabel, despite the fact that only about 10 per cent of the population use airports on any regular basis. When I say 10 per cent of our population, Mr. Speaker, I must qualify that statement by saying that I have removed from that calculation the Minister of Transport's travels in and out of our airports, in order to put the figure in a more meaningful context.
The Minister of Transport tells us that urban transit is the domain of the provinces and is the responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities. Yet we find as far back as May 15, 1973, in my first private member's bill, a recommendation to establish a national urban transportation authority which, though funded partly by the federal authorities, would have the power to establish local urban or regional transportation authorities. I refer again to the situation, as 1 did then, in the United States, Great Britain, France and other countries where local or urban authorities oversee the local harbours, airports, interurban rail transportation and all transit needs within their purview. If such authorities existed in Canada there would no doubt be a completely different range of priorities to that now being shown by the government.
One important fact often forgotten is that where there are local authorities which not only look after transit in urban areas but also look after airports, harbours and similar services, such authorities are extremely conscious of the needs of the area and of the cost consequences of their actions. New York is one example. This is why in Chicago or New York, they would not dare propose to build a Mirabel or a Pickering airport at the present time. If you spoke to the officials of those authorities you would find them saying, first of all, that there is no evidence of public travel needs rising to the point at which additional facilities on this scale are needed in those centres and, in the second place, they would say they cannot afford the cost. They would explain that they cannot afford to build new airports because those airports could only be financed by getting the airline carriers to sign sufficient longterm commitments to cover the costs of construction and operation.
This approach is significantly different from the one adopted in Canada. Unfortunately, the entire process is centralized here in Ottawa in the Department of Transport, with one little brain trying to run the entire show. The fact is that this little brain cannot possibly cope with the variety of needs which exist in our urban centres as far as transportation is concerned and, consequently, a lot of mistakes are made. Mistakes are made because bureaucracies like to build monuments to themselves. They have a Taj Mahal complex. They like to be able to build something, touch it and say that Mirabel is there because they thought it was a good idea. The fact that Mirabel was not needed is a secondary thing. The fact that for years and years Canadians are going to have to pay needless interest and

operating costs to handle Mirabel is a secondary thing in their minds.
That brings me to the situation in Toronto. If there has been a co-ordinated local authority attitude taken in Toronto, the concept of a Pickering airport development before the commuter rail situation had been solved would not have been seriously advanced. The fact is that the local Toronto people realize that the No. 1 need in that area is to facilitate workers coming to and from work in a more humane way than that which exists at the present time. It is as simple as that. This government, centralized in Ottawa and acting under a minister who really does not understand, seems to accept the bureaucratic "build a monument" concept and says that we must have a Pickering. I am saying that money could be better spent developing proper urban transport facilities in the Toronto area, and the notion that a second airport is needed in that area is silly.
There are other ridiculous examples of where this minister and his predecessor, either directly or through agencies reporting to them, have done foolish things in Toronto with regard to priorities. For example, if the ministers choose to join us in the Toronto area on March 14, one of the things I hope they will sense is the congestion which exists at Union station. There are about 37,000 passengers going through Union station who use the rail service, and frankly Union station was not built to handle that many people. When the bilevel trains start in a few months it is likely that the congestion will be much greater. We need a new facility or some type of new transit facility to handle the crowds coming into Union station. That takes tens of millions of dollars to build. The federal government joined in the preliminary discussions with respect to that facility, but now, after those discussions have taken place, the government says there is no money to help facilitate the building.
On the question of priorities, why did the government allow the CN to build the CN tower which cost approximately $58 million and which will not make money in a meaningful way, when the very commuters who come to and from work every day in that city have to go by that tower and be subjected to congestion at Union station? Surely it is a ridiculous sense of priority to say that building the CN tower for $58 million should come before a decent facility to allow 37,000 people to come and go by way of rail transit which they choose to use.
Let me give another example. Not only is the rail station congested, but in the railyard itself the local GO transit authority cannot bring in additional trains from the west side of Toronto until there is a realignment of the trackage. Incidentally, that trackage goes right by the CN tower. It will cost approximately $57 million to realign that trackage, but here again priority was given to building the CN tower before the federal government was willing to spend money on trackage which is impeding further commuter lines coming in from the west side of Toronto. That is unbelievable.
However, clearly the only reason these inconsistencies occur in the Toronto area is that this minister, his predecessor, the
March 3, 1977

government and the Prime Minister do not know what they are doing in relation to the Toronto problem. For example, with absolutely no reference to the Toronto area they chose to propose the Toronto waterfront park. They went ahead and bought that land. They did not ask the mayor of Toronto or the chairman of the metropolitan Toronto region if they felt the park would be a nice thing, or whether it was needed. They did not ask whether that was a priority or whether they should be spending money on that before helping people get to and from work.
They went ahead and bought it and, most alarmingly, when they are now questioned as to why they had money for the Toronto harbour front-and yet now they say, in relation to their 1974 promises concerning urban transit, that they do not have the $290 million to help with urban transit-what are we told? The President of the Treasury Board has the audacity to say in this House that the Toronto waterfront project was a 1972 promise, and he grinned, implying that the 1974 promises do not count. That is the mentality of this government. That is the mentality which has caused millions of Canadians to lose confidence in this government. They want to get rid of this government as quickly as possible.
I have outlined this, but perhaps for those who are not willing to take my word I shall read into the record an editorial comment in the Toronto Star of February 22. Under the headline "Ottawa makes chaos for commuters" this article reads in part as follows:
Every day 37,000 rail passengers, mostly commuters, pass through a congested and antiquated Union station. It's clear to everyone of them, although not to transport minister Otto Lang in Ottawa, that the place was designed for a more leisurely era.
A bigger crush is yet to come. This fall the first of 80 new double-decker trains will appear on the Lakeshore GO transit line, running between Oakville and Pickering, boosting capacity from 28,000 passengers a day to 42,000 a day.
Union Station was to have had better tracks and wider platforms before the new coaches and additional passengers started arriving. But Ottawa's backtracking on its 1974 election promise to aid urban transit means it's unlikely the station will be expanded or the angle of railway tracks at Bathurst St. will be straightened out. Ottawa's refusal to keep its word is creating commuter chaos in metro.
This is an urgent problem. I am pleased that certain Liberal backbenchers who like to support the government are at least guardedly speaking and pointing out to the government that it is making a mistake. 1 hope they will have the courage to vote against this bill when the vote is taken at second reading. 1 also hope that if this bill is defeated, the Prime Minister will regard that as a vote of no confidence in his government and that he will resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't count on it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The "on again, off again" promises of the Prime Minister lead us to ask just who is speaking for the government. Is it the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance?
I know my colleagues want to participate in this debate, and I wish I had more time. I would like to have read into the
National Transportation Act
record the promises which were made to the Canadian public in the 1974 election campaign concerning urban transit. Perhaps tomorrow as this debate continues, or on our own opposition motion, there will be opportunities to read some of those promises into the record.
However, those broken promises in all likelihood spell an end to $200 million of transit projects in the metropolitan Toronto area. They spell an end to the $57 million of upgrading and renovation of Union station, which I have referred to. They spell an end to the $25 million of extension on the Streetsville GO line. Also, they will spell an end to the $80 million of light rail line construction to the Scarborough town centre.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: What about Montreal?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They will spell an end to the $35 million purchase of rail cars for the Lakeshore GO system. Someone asked, "What about Montreal?" Montreal has a problem, too, and this federal government has failed to acknowledge the problem. 1 have the honour to represent an area just north of metropolitan Toronto and I feel that I have the right to stand in this House and point out the inadequacies of federal policy in regard to the Toronto transit situation. I would welcome it if the hon. member would stand in the House and speak in favour of more urban transit for people in Montreal and let the federal government know in no uncertain terms that Montreal, too, is being short-changed by a federal government that thinks more of its own political power than of serving the Canadian public.
I have referred to the fact that there has been a reneging on the part of the government in regard to urban transit promises. But it goes further than that. In our type of federation there must be great trust between the federal government, the ten provinces and the territories. When deals are made, those deals must be honoured. I think it is most reprehensible that a deal was made, for example, by the Minister of Transport's predecessor, now Senator Marchand, in which he gave an assurance-indeed, a commitment-to the Ontario government that if they wished to go ahead and buy 80 bilevel cars which they would order from Hawker Siddeley in Thunder Bay at a cost of approximately $38 million, the federal government would pay the cost of that purchase. Now the federal government is reneging.
If any member on the other side of this House doubts what I say, I would refer him to the statement in the legislature of Ontario made by the hon. James Snow, minister of transportation and communications, on December 16 of last year. He was quite clear. He pointed out in no uncertain terms that Ontario had made plans based on firm commitments given by federal authorities, and those commitments were apparently not going to be honoured. He further stated that he had had a meeting with the Minister of Transport and that he hoped the Minister of Transport would come back to him and show some realization of the situation and agree that the commitments would be honoured. He anticipated, as he spoke in the legisla-

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
ture, that he would hear from the Minister of Transport before Christmas of last year.
The fact is that to this point the Ontario government has not heard from the Minister of Transport, or from anybody else at the ministerial level in the government, in regard to these outstanding commitments in connection with the purchase to which the Ontario government has committed itself. I would recommend to any hon. member who wishes to join in this debate, particularly if he is on the government side, to take a look at the statement made by Mr. Snow in the Ontario legislature which vividly shows the uncertainty now existing between the Ontario authorities and the federal government over urban transit in the Toronto area at the present time-in fact, throughout Ontario.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a few comments on the bill before the House. The important thing we must bear in mind is that if we are not careful, the highly centralized control which we have in the Ministry of Transport will not be responsive to the needs of the various cities and regions within this country to the extent it should be. The minister likes to say that he is evolving a policy of user-pay. There is nothing wrong with the concept. But when you start to analyse it, Mr. Speaker, you ask: User pay what? Who decides whether an operation is being run efficiently? Who decides if a Mirabel should be built and consequently paid for? Is it fair to talk to Canadians about user-pay, for example, in the case of a Mirabel or in the case of the operation of the Toronto international airport No. 1 or the proposed No. 2? Is it fair to say the user should pay when there is absolutely no control on the expenditure side with respect to what those users are being asked to pay? That, Mr. Speaker, can only be decided by the vote of the Canadian public.
In short, what is the point of the Minister of Transport saying that he has got a new theory, that users are going to start paying for services that are under his control, when there is serious doubt whether those services are, first of all, in many cases needed; and, secondly, are being run in an efficient way that warrants the user-pay concept?
More than that, Mr. Speaker, when you are in government there is never any question of who pays: it is the taxpayer who pays. All the minister is saying is that he would like to take from one group of taxpayers and give to another group and say that the users are paying. My point is that it is all very fine to talk of user-pay provided you can show that the government has acted in a frugal way, that they have moved only to build the facilities that are needed in a particular area.
Unfortunately, we have one of the saddest transport departments, in Canada, of any comparable country in the world. The government builds monuments to civil servants and then expects Canadians, either through their tax dollars or through their usage of services, to pay, and in many cases to pay for services that are needless. It is time that those who have supported the government to date showed their mettle. If they want to be re-elected in the Toronto area, then let them stand up, show a little courage and vote against this bill.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the members on both sides who have participated in this debate so far, and I think that with the exception of the opposition critic practically the entire debate has been taken up generally with the problems of metro Toronto and other metropolitan areas in this country. While I fully realize there are such problems and that there is a delineation of responsibility between the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities, I suggest there are many other issues in other parts of the country that are equally important and which will be affected by the legislation which is before us today.
Bill C-33 is a very major bill which is of interest to every member of the House no matter which region he represents or to which particular party he belongs. I think the amendments proposed will go quite a distance in meeting many of the concerns that have been expressed, not only in this debate but in the House over the last number of years-almost daily in the question period-with regard to affairs of transport. I am quite sure the bill will not provide a framework which will solve all our transportation problems.
The general topic of transportation policy, the lack of it, the results of it, have been a favourite political whipping-boy for a very long time, and in many cases with good reason. I think yesterday we had pretty good evidence of that. Some of the shenanigans which went on in the House underline the concern of hon. members or this particular issue. Certainly, both political groups and other special interest groups will as well, I am sure, keep the issue before the government for some time in the future.
Some of the points I want to comment upon are related to achievements and to the progress which has definitely been made over the last few years in western Canada. Many changes have been made and a good deal of progress has been made to alleviate some of the long-standing sore points so far as western Canada is concerned. I am the first to say that by no means have we exhausted the list as yet, nor can this legislation provide answers to all those concerns.
It was less than ten years ago, as was mentioned by one hon. member participating in the debate, that this House extensively debated the present National Transportation Act which was adopted under a minority government. I am sure it had the support of the majority of members at that time, and I am sure they thought, also, that it would take care of the transportation needs and would form a framework for transportation policies for many years to come. That was only eight years ago. I am sure hon. members were satisfied then that they had the correct legislation and the correct regulatory mechanism basically in place to deal with those problems.
That act was the result of the MacPherson Commission study which had been at work for many years prior to that. The events leading up to some of these changes at which we are looking in Bill C-33 are worth noting. The former minister of transport-referred to by the hon. member who just
March 3, 1977

resumed his seat-recognized the difficulties faced by him, by the government and by this country in his now famous remark to the effect that the transportation policy of Canada was a mess, a remark which was widely publicized and, I might say, widely misinterpreted.
The former minister certainly, was not being critical, as was the hon. member who just resumed his seat, of the thousands of dedicated people in the Department of Transport and in other agencies across this country who work, and have worked hard, to provide good transportation services of which we can be proud instead of continually criticizing it. I do not say that there is no room for improvement, but everyone seems to criticize our two major railroads. It is a toss-up between them and the CBC as to which is more of a politicial whipping-boy. But the fact is that those two major railroads, despite the odds of geography and severe winter weather and other difficulties with which they have to contend in Canada, get the job done in a remarkable way.
The changes that took place since the 1967 act brought about a review of policy and a review of programs and another look at the legislation, which led up to the introduction of Bill C-33 in the House in this session. For example, in the eight years since the present act came into force we have seen dramatic change. We have seen growth in the demand for and the price of our resources such as oil, grain, potash and coal, all of which place significantly increased pressure on the capacity of our transportation system in the first instance. Second, we are all aware, and, are becoming more aware every day, of the energy crisis which sharpens our awareness of the need to conserve energy. The change of attitudes and values resulting in our concern about growth rates and the environmental impact of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, which is a major transportation issue, and the study on that, are a reflection of that fact.
Certainly, there are significant advances in transportation technology in a variety of fields too numerous to mention. Those are some of the changing trends and changing patterns that have developed in this country and are part of life today which perhaps were not so obvious a mere eight years ago when the former act was in place. It was the variety of policies and programs that had grown up in different parts of the country to meet different situations that had in some cases changed from the time they were first initiated, and this was the kind of thing that led the former minister to make the statement that he made that the transportation policy is in a mess and should be reviewed.
There was a growth in size of some of our very large agencies, usually accompanied by a growth in independence as a result, and that has been a trend in government-federal, provincial and others. Bill C-33 proposes to make the arrangements between the major regulatory body in this act-namely, the CTC-and the minister's office, the minister's powers and duties, a good deal more flexible than is now the case under the present legislation. The rate-regulating side of the CTC remains unchanged in principle, but policy and research functions should be primarily an MOT responsibility and the
National Transportation Act
responsibility of the minister in charge. He is charged with those responsibilities; he is held accountable here in the House and across the country-and consequently he should have the authority in those fields.
As I have said, there have been a good few noteworthy improvements and achievements in recent years, despite the continued criticism and continued concerns coming from all parts of the country on transportation matters. In western Canada, so far as our grievances are concerned-and many of them have been there since confederation-a number of points are well worth noting. First of all, and perhaps most important, it seems to me that in the last two or three years we are learning more about the nature of those specific grievances. By hollering about high freight rates and generalities of that kind we will not change them. There are great distances to cover.
We are, indeed, captive shippers in so far as the railways are concerned, in the great majority of cases. We are learning more about those problems. We are identifying them and spelling them out more clearly. We are consulting with a great many more people involved. I am not talking just about the users, about the industries and about the unions and the people involved in providing the services. I am talking about the provincial governments and other governments involved and affected by transportation policies. The work of the former minister in initiating and setting up federal-provincial groups and committees in western Canada, in the maritimes, in Quebec and in Ontario-which practice has been developed and maintained by the present minister-has in itself gone a long way to help alleviate some of those problems by setting up a better consultative mechanism. As I say, in my view that has been a significant achievement in the last several years. Provincial governments today are much more closely involved than they were a mere four or five years ago.
Another move that was made by this government a year or so ago was to pass legislation forcing the railroad to provide its costs on specific rates and charges to the federal government on a confidential basis, which would then be made available to the provinces. Certainly this is working well and is enabling us to get answers to some of the concerns which were discussed earlier in the debate by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). We are getting more of the answers now.
We have been able to substantiate some of the facts. Bill C-33 will eliminate the long-haul short-haul anomaly that has long been not only a sore spot with western Canadians but a good deal worse than that. There is provision for certain exceptions which I hope the minister will deal with when the bill goes to committee. I realize that there are valid reasons for the flexibility being there and I hope the minister can elaborate on that when the bill goes to committee.
The reduction of the maximum rate is another move which I think will work to the advantage of all Canadians, particularly western Canadians. That amendment is contained in the bill. Hopper cars were mentioned in the earlier remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), as being another develop-
3626

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
ment and advance in transportation in western Canada. This is not covered by the bill, but it is one of those achievements which, as I mentioned, has taken place over the last several years. We should not assume, as we might from listening to some of the arguments advanced by hon. members, that we can completely reject the economic facts of life, and transportation is nothing more nor less than pure political posturing. The minister and the government have not said, nor did they ever say, that all transportation services must be economical.
What we have said, and what has been the policy and practice for many years-and certainly a very defensible one-is that we must ensure we are carefully spending the money and the funds, that are going to support the many special exceptions to the basic rule. The user, in the majority of cases, still must pay for services rendered. The transportation policy and this legislation will enable the minister and the government to ensure it now becomes a more effective government tool for alleviating regional disparities and promoting regional economic development. I think that is one of the criticisms that has been put forward, not only from the west but from the east and other parts of the country, that will in essence enable the minister and the government to respond to this concern.
There have been two or three other achievements over the past few years. In western Canada we are awaiting the Hall commission report dealing with the question of branch lines. We hope that will be handed down before long and will give us some direction. The Snaveley report on grain handling is another transportation-oriented issue. We are learning the real facts, and any time we come up with that result we will be able more sensibly to deal with the issues it provides for better resolution of the problems. There are still very many valid concerns in western Canada regarding transportation, and today we are delineating more of them, in co-operation with provincial governments and other groups, than we have for many years. We understand much better the nature of the problem.
The bill will go a long way, but of course it will not resolve our concerns although it will provide a better framework to deal with those issues and concerns. Transportation is a very important aspect of the social life of all of us, so important to the community and the economy, both domestically and in terms of linking us with our markets, that we cannot afford as a government to become less involved. I think that if need be we should become more involved. These amendments will provide that opportunity.
The amendments make it clear that the regulatory function which is necessary for the proper management of Canadian transportation-the Canadian Transport Commission will continue in that role with less emphasis on legal procedures and with more administrative simplicity. The amendments will ensure that the Minister of Transport and his department is the principal source of transportation policy advice to the government. They will give the minister and the government a

more acceptable means of giving policy direction to the CTC itself, but not in the context of any specific case that may be before the commission.
The government has made a good deal of progress in the last several years. Both the former minister and the present minister and their staff have devoted a great deal of effort and energy to the job. I am sure some of my hon. friends opposite will not agree, but 1 can certainly say that the minister has been tackling many of the problems in a very capable manner. The problems that have been plaguing the country for many years are not going to disappear simply because they are not recognized-problems compounded by inflation and the changing concerns of people and by working with policies and institutions that are not amenable to change.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time parliament has engaged in a debate on the principles of the transportation system of our country. Some of us remember the great hopes we had from the Duff report in the 1930s when it was recommended that the railways of the country, particularly on the prairies, be rationalized in their operation to overcome the mistakes of the early development period. After the war the problem was still with us. Then in 1949-50 we had the Turgeon royal commission. Once again, the commission made the same recommendation, that we should rationalize the operation of the railways and pay a bridge subsidy for going around the lakes.
Once again there were high hopes that the railway systems would begin to operate more effectively and efficiently. In 1959 the MacPherson royal commission was set up with instructions to end once and for all this wasting of the nation s resources in the inefficient, uneconomic handling of our transportation system. As a result of the report of that commission under the leadership of Mr. MacPherson, this parliament debated in the House and in committee from 1964 to 1967 proposals to put into effect the main recommendations of the commission.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) mentioned that at that time there was a minority government and that all parties supported the legislation. That is true, Mr. Speaker. There was general recognition on the part of the government-which was Liberal-and on the part of the opposition parties that we finally had to put our house in order. As a rough estimate, I would think that 40 per cent of the total economy of this country is in large measure dependent upon the efficient operation of some mode of transportation. What did we do when we put that legislation throughh in 1966-67? We accepted the principles of the MacPherson royal commission report. They were two. The first principle was that we should encourage the railways and other forms of transportation to compete with each other-railways to compete with trucking, air transportation, pipelines, and so on, as well as sea and water transportation. There was a principle of compensatory payments that was accepted in principle at that time.
Second, we accepted the principle that has been historic for every parliament since 1967-that when in the national interest we had to do something to help a region, an area or a group

in the national interest, the taxpayers of Canada would pay for it and not require the payment to be made by the transportation carrier. Those two principles, of competition and compensatory payments, and the taxpayers willing to accept, for the national unity of the country, responsibility for anything we ask the carriers to do that was not economic, were accepted.
Almost 80 amendments were proposed during that debate. The government accepted most of them because there was a will among all parties to make the system work. All parties agreed, and decided that our transport system, involving new modes of transport and developments, was beyond the capacity of a single minister to handle-in fact, was beyond the capacity of two or three deputy ministers to handle: they did not have the time. The system is complex, vast, and all parties agreed that by putting so much responsibility on one minister who was busy with other duties and two or three deputy ministers, assisted by secretaries and engineers, we had made a mess of it. It was just too large for one small group to handle. To quote the words of the previous minister of finance, our transport system was "a mess".
Today I listened to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), an urban member, speaking about the problems of urban transportation, about the problems of people who must use urban transit to enter and leave our cities. In my 20 years as a member of parliament I have seldom heard an urban member discuss transportation. Usually, when we discuss transportation, the urban members leave the House because, after all, it is only a matter for the rural people, the people of the prairies, the maritimes, the people of Quebec, of northern Ontario and the remote areas of British Columbia and the territories. On this significant-you might say-historical day an urban member spoke about the government's record on transit. I join the hon. member for York-Simcoe in hoping that other members representing cities-Vancouver, Montreal, Winnipeg, smaller cities like Calgary, Edmonton, Regina' Saskatoon, Halifax and others-will also speak in this debate.
Rising transportation costs are a main element in forcing up living costs and production costs, and high production costs make us less competitive with our world competitors. Transportation is still probably one of the most important responsibilities of any department of government. It is no accident, as I have said many times, that the largest committee room in the centre block is the railway committee room. For most of the last 100 years members of parliament have spent much time considering questions of transportation. All this has passed and we no longer use the railway committee room except for banquets and social occasions.


An hon. Member:: And committees.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This legislation will not give us the chance to use it again. I shall now deal with the principles at issue. The decisions we made during the last ten years were based on attempts to make our railways run their operations rationally. Surely no fair-minded person who
National Transportation Act
knows anything about transport techniques in the world will deny that Canadian National and the CPR-the two great national railways-and the PGE match in their operational techniques any railway in the world. Our railways are efficient. Compare them with the railways operating in the northeast United States. The railroads of our neighbours to the south are a mess. They are a catastrophe.
Consider the operation of the United States railway system which tries to haul tremendous tonnages of goods to southeast coast ports. It it were not for the Mississippi water system the transport system of the central United States would be a chaotic mess. We in Canada have fine, highly trained and dedicated working people doing a tremendous job on our railways. The failure of our railway system has been at the top level; the failure stems from management operating in Montreal and other cities, in offices remote from operations. You cannot learn transport problems if you are in a skyscraper. You must be out in the field, in the regions of the country, to learn about our transport problems.
Over the years people from all parts of this country have raised a litany of complaints about how the railways try to make money. Their lists of complaints would make a book as long as any you have read. Naturally, one tends to think of how the railways try to make money in one's own area because those examples come readily to mind. In my province of Saskatchewan we have a great tonnage of potash to move. One set of mines in my constituency produces close to three million tons of potash a year. But they could not get the railways to carry the potash. The railway said, "Oh, no. We are here for one purpose only, to carry wheat." So the government of Saskatchewan had to build a monstrous highway, superior to the Trans-Canada highway in quality, to allow trucks to haul that potash night and day to the American railway, the Great Northern, which took the potash to the great markets of the mid-west. Mr. Speaker, that kind of nonsense alienates the friends and supporters of our railway system.
Another example which gripes me has to do with the western portion of western Canada. In the early days, when we found oil and gas in that part of the country, we wasted much oil and gas-at least, we burned off all low pressure fuels. I went to one company which had a tremendous deposit of unused natural gas in the ground because they did not know what to do with all the surplus propane except flare it off, and I proposed to the company that they should go to the major railways and ask them to haul propane for an agreed charge. The company knew the propane was valuable and as good as natural gas, but they did not have the technology for shipping
I suggested they should haul the propane in big tanks covering the length of a couple of flat cars. I suggested they could service the prairies for 400 miles around and all Canada as far west as B.C., as well as markets in Montana and other parts of the United States. This fuel could heat our homes and run our cars and tractors. When the proposal was made to the railways, what did they say? Both of them said, in effect, Yes, we admit this business will be a money-maker for us, but
80010-231/2

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
not in the first couple of years. We will not be ready for a couple of years, or not before you develop the market, for only then can we make money out of this traffic". Today the people of western Canada are bearing the heavy costs of pipelines built all over Alberta and Saskatchewan. Today one hears complaints about access to premium fuel for industry, fuel which should have been reserved for customers in the far distant regions of the country including Ontario and our American markets. The railways did this deliberately, 25 years ago not because they were against making money but because it was not their policy to take a loss for two years while markets were built up. I shall touch on this subject again when we consider the bill clause by clause.
More recently, the Hall commission travelled to the west. At every meeting farmers and businessmen rose and cited examples to show that the railways could carry more tonnage. The railways had applied to abandon thousands of miles of line, but under pressure-the commissioners being there-the railways admitted that they could make money in southeastern Saskatchewan. Farmers, using the railways' own figures, were able to prove that if the railways hauled grain east instead of west and then back east again, they would make more money. They were able to prove that right in that area there was a market which would be equivalent of many millions of bushels of wheat, but for another commodity, gravel. One gravel pit supplies gravel-short areas for 100 miles around. With the price the railways charge for hauling gravel, a lot higher than wheat but much lower than the truck haul, the railways could have knocked the trucks out of the gravel business and saved our roads. There would have been a tremendous increase in income. This short haul of 100 miles would have put all those lines into a black position on the economic ledger. The railways had no choice, under the presentation of those figures and the presentation of the commissioners, but to admit that all these lines in southeastern Saskatchewan should be kept. When we ended up that day with the royal commission, the general feeling was that instead of taking out some of our main lines we should add 40 miles of line to make it more efficient. I point out these examples to illustrate the fact that this type of representation has been made to royal commissions since the thirties. Just as long as royal commissions have recommended rationalization, just as steadily has the management of railways refused to accept it. In Saskatchewan we have railway lines running parallel for 100 miles, one CN and one CP. Why they cannot use one line for both trains I do not know. Every royal commission recommends it. I will come back to that matter.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to make a case for the fact that parliament has on several occasions spent a great deal of time trying to put legislation and principles on the statute books of this House that will direct our system into a more effective and efficient management of the whole transportation system, not just the railways. At the end of that debate ten years ago, one promise was made by the then minister on condition that we let the legislation go through.

The minister made a promise-which is on the record of this House-that no future abandonment of these reserve lines would be allowed until the railways showed their cost of operation. In spite of that promise by the then minister, the railways still have not provided to the people of Canada the cost of operating these lines.
The railways are a power unto themselves. Seven years ago some civil servants got permission from the government to convert Canada into the metric system. This group of civil servants told the grain companies, "This is going to be done. Do it." They told the oil companies, "This is going to be done. Do it". All those poor innocents thought that was the law and went ahead and prepared for it last February 1-but not the railways. They said that when they were good and ready they would convert. That is one issue. Parliament thought it had resolved that issue ten years ago. It has still to be resolved in this legislation. We have two commissions at the present time on this subject. The Snavely report is now before us. In plain, blunt terms, since the minister could not find any person in Canada who knew anything about railway costing-no one does, not even the railways-they went outside the country and got a man who came here to establish what it costs to haul grain.
Many members of this House have read the Snavely report. There is no evidence in there as to costing. There is simple and flat assertion that the railways say it costs this much, and another flat assertion from representatives of the grain companies that this is the estimate of the costs. All the royal commissioner did was to split the difference. They expect parliament, on that type of whistling in the wind or finding the wind with your thumb, to make a decision on what it costs to haul grain in western Canada.
Second, we have the Hall commission which deals with the rationalization of railways, the same thing we had in the three previous royal commissions. It also is to deal with rationalization of grain. That report is not in yet. Before we even try to discuss this bill intelligently we should have those two royal commission reports.
I want to move on to the main part of my remarks. 1 am going to differ from the hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley, the minister and the government, and put it into terms that every member of parliament will understand and, I hope, every person in this country will understand. In 1966-67, parliament-with the support of all parties-decided that the Minister of Transport, regardless of his politics, and the Department of Transport, were incompetent by their own track record to run this huge, vast, complicated, intermodal system of transportation in Canada. We, the members of parliament, decided to transfer the power of policy-making and regulation to a new board called the Canadian Transport Commission. That power was given ten years ago.
What does this bill do? It says, in effect, that the CTC is a mess, that it does not do the job parliament asked it to do. Therefore, we are going to change all the powers and policymaking from the CTC back to the minister, the department and the governor general in council. This bill centralizes the
March 3, 1977

power of over 40 per cent of this country into the hands of one minister, with his department, which has a track record of failure going back 40 years. It says we made the mistake of putting it into an independent, neutral board. If you look at the bill you will find they still repeat the principle of the MacPherson royal commission report that rates must be compensatory. There must be competition where possible. In the national interest, the national taxpayer will pay. There is no mention of the costing principle which is vital to the control of all types of transportation.
This bill moves all powers of transportation, representing about 40 per cent of the economic segment, over to the minister. The minister will now be known as the czar of all the railways, the czar of all the airlines, not only "Lang Airlines" but the whole bit. He will be the czar of all pipelines and the czar of all water carriers. We have a measure of this czar from watching what he has done over the past five or six years, ever since the LIFT program of 1970.
What we are doing in this bill is transferring power from an independent forum to a political forum-to the minister and to the cabinet. There is no mechanism here for control by parliament. We are simply going back to square one. It was a mess for 40 years, and we tried to get out of that mess by putting things into the hands of an independent body. Now we are going back to the old system.
I ask this question: "Does parliament, does this country, want this tremendous power we have turned over to the CTC-which never used it-turned back to the minister and to the deputy ministers enabling them to move at any moment, make announcements outside the House, push in programs or scrap them without anything being said in parliament?" Members have heard what happened to the promises made in 1974 with regard to urban transit assistance. In the maritimes they are being betrayed by the "at and east" rates. In addition, the minister has suggested that the Crowsnest agreement, going back many years, should be changed. This is what we are objecting to. This is what we are being asked to do. There is no limit to the minister's power except the governor in council. It will reside in a cabinet barely able at the present time to keep up with its duties. Yet ministers will now be expected to watch over an industry so vast and complex that parliament decided some years ago it was too big for any one department and that it should be placed in the hands of a 17-man commission.
I hope members of parliament who feel themselves responsible for the successful working out of this country's economic situation will think long and seriously before accepting such a situation. I should like to suggest to the minister that the unity of this country is more than a matter of politics. It is a matter of economics as well. In Saskatchewan we have just finished fighting a couple of by-elections. I know that the Liberals have been complaining that we were bringing federal issues into provincial affairs. But we cannot avoid federal issues in Saskatchewan because our province is so completely dependent upon the economic policies of the federal government.
National Transportation Act
We see our province, as well as others, being attacked by the federal government in areas which are ours under the constitution. We think of the petroleum administration bill, of the intervention of the government in the case between the government of Saskatchewan and one of its own companies which it was taxing. The federal government has been interfering in matters which were none of its business, including even the metric system. Why does this administration go out of its way to make changes without telling the people, without telling the provincial government? Does it think it can continue to do this without getting into trouble?
I realize it cannot be pleasant for the minister to sit in the House and have to listen to what I am saying, but he is the chief architect of the unpopularity of the central government of this country in the west. What he has done, as minister in charge of the Wheat Board, as minister of justice and as Minister of Transport, with all the powers he has, is something the west is not anxious to tolerate any longer. If the minister will accept in good faith that we on this side would like to see a better transportation system, let him please give us the benefit of the thought that there might be some ideas better than those presented in the bill before us.
The other day the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) made a speech in which he held forth as to the advantages of stability. He made it clear that the carriers and the captive shippers had to know what the policy was before the system could work properly-they had to make their plans, and so on.
I should like to turn to an even more fundamental criticism of this legislation, but before I do so I wish to suggest that the CTC never had a fair trial. We set up this 17-man commission. What did the government do? It put in charge of that commission two washed-out, beaten-up old politicians. They had run out of steam in the political arena and they took refuge in an organization whose decisions could affect 40 per cent of the economy of this country. They took over, all they did was study, study, study.
They never directed the railways to do anything, for the reason they had no power to direct. It was a case of the Department of Transport saying, "You should do this," and of the CTC saying, "We are studying the matter". There was a dichotomy. But surely the answer is not to put the system back into the hands of those who have proved they could not run it before. The answer, in my view, is to get at the cause of the problems in the CTC.
I have referred to the government's bad habit of putting politicians who need a rest home more quiet than the Senate in charge of powerful commissions and agencies. I suggest we should leave the CTC as it is but give the commission the power to direct the various carriers engaged in the transportation business. The old legislation of ten years ago merely said that the commission "may recommend". Knowing the history and attitude of railway management, I can say that any recommendation from a transport commission or similar body set up by parliament has about as much effect as a fly on an elephant's hide. This has been proven for 40 years. They are so

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
tough they do not even listen to the metric commission. The power has to be put into the legislation.
Tremendous efforts were made in speech after speech of mine ten years ago pleading with the government to give the CTC the power to direct. If that power were given, it would need to be accompanied by the power to enforce. Because we had accepted the principle of the national government paying for all the things the railways were asked to do in the national interest, we had the club in our hands. The minister at that time was Mr. Pickersgill. Members who read the answers he gave me over a series of weeks will see how they twist and turn. He said, in effect, "We are dealing here with private enterprise and we would not think of directing private enterprise to do something which was against its will". Then, when he ended up by appointing himself chairman of the board, it was obvious why he took the line he did. He did not want responsibility for directing anything.
Mr. Speaker, the power of direction and enforcement would give the CTC a chance to prove whether it can operate effectively or not. There is a second consideration, and it is dear to my heart. We have to give back to parliament control over the government of this country, and particularly over transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I said earlier, and I will mention it again, that the biggest committee room in this building is the railway committee room. I want to see that railway committee room filled again with members of parliament, backed up by the most skilled staff which money can buy and which knows the costing procedure, can question the railways, the bus companies and other transportation bodies as to cost, that knows what the law is and how to enforce it.
The CTC has been in place for ten years, but it still does not know the costing formulas of the railways. That is the reason we had to go to the country and get the Snavely report. Parliament must be given back its control. The system I proposed ten years ago was incorporated in a motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I seconded it. It was a very simple proposal. We used the example of the Commonwealth of Australia in suggesting that a statutory committee be set up. The statutory committee would not be dependent upon the whims of the prime minister and the cabinet. This committee of parliament would meet by statute with a chairman of the opposition and with a staff that was paid for by that committee and would be independent of the civil service and the carriers. This committee would watch the CTC, to see that it did not spend all of its time studying but directed and carried out the powers of parliament and laid down in the statute, and enforced government policies.
The question of costing was so embarrassing to Canada ten years ago that when the question of rates came up, one railway-the CPR-told the government that it lost money
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).)
hauling grain in the year 1958; I think the loss was $17 million. This horrified the western grain companies in the prairie provinces and they collected an equal amount of money. They went down to New York, where the CPR had put forward its costing figures, and they hired an equally prestigious accounting group to look at the same figures. In due course they reported that the company had made money.
So you have one group of highly skilled accountants working for the CPR and saying that the CPR lost money. Another group of accountants working for the grain companies said the CPR had made money. What did the royal commission do? It hired an equally prestigious group of accountants to examine the same CPR figures, and they concluded that the railways either made money or lost money. I have their report here and all members should read it. They will never understand it because those who made it do not understand it.
I am simply pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that on this question of parliamentary control we must accept, in humility, that neither do we as parliamentarians have the time properly to control a CTC with such an involved, complicated and vast operation as they have to manage, but in that humility we have to accept that there is a need to hire people, if necessary at a cost of $200,000 or $300,000 a year, to give us the kind of competent advice needed to cope with the type of thing we are up against here in Canada where we do not know the costing of the railways. We do know more about the airlines and we know precisely the costing of pipelines because that matter is well in hand, but we do have to take on this question of railway costing.
I think that we in parliament would serve ourselves well if we were to provide, in this legislation, firstly that the CTC stayed with its present powers; secondly, that the CTC be given the power to direct and to enforce under the terms already outlined in the act; and, thirdly, that we in parliament should be the ones the watch the CTC, not the Minister of Transport. I would not care if he was the Lord himself; he would not have the time to look after this tremendously complex and vast operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't disillusion him; he thinks he is.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The fourth provision I should like to see in this legislation, in addition to the three principles I have enunciated, is that a decision be made by parliament on this perpetual question of how we are going to pay for transportation in this vast regional country in a way that is fair to all. In his announcement, the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 3, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I distinctly heard some "no's" and that is the reason I recognized the hon. member for New Westminster.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I gave my consent to having the hon. member continue his remarks, and I did so for a special reason. I find it a delight to be able to follow the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I do not think I have ever listened to a speech of his in the House without learning something from it. I think his suggestion concerning the moving of gravel, for example, along with grain, merits a lot more attention than it has been given in the past. His suggestion about a statutory committee of the House and the return of some power to parliament is one that is certainly worthy of a great deal more attention and thought. I presume from the hon. member's remarks that he is going to vote against the bill, although I did not hear him say whether he was or was not. I presume the Conservative party is going to vote against this bill.


An hon. Member:: Don't bet on it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I still find it hard to distinguish between the government and the official opposition when it comes to transportation policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You want to paint the trains red.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They will all be red. One of the interesting things in this debate has been to listen to the revolt of the backbenchers of the Liberal party. This has been a fascinating exercise. Every time we get members on the government side deciding that their personal ambition is somehow a little less than the ambition they have for their own riding, 1 find it welcome. I am glad to know that members of this House declare themselves interested in their constituents, as did, apparently, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) yesterday. They held forth very eloquently in regard to their dissatisfaction with the promises that were made in the 1974 election campaign on the subject of urban transit. In fact, the hon. member for York East said his support of this bill was contingent, so I presume he has not yet made up his mind whether he is going to vote in favour of it. The hon. member said that his support was contingent on five factors, one of which was that financial assistance must be maintained. A second factor was that federal assistance must be within specific time parameters, and he referred to a number of other areas which he said would have to be dealt with before he would lend his support. I do not see the hon. member in the House today, but perhaps he will read my remarks in Hansard.
National Transportation Act
We would like to give the hon. member an opportunity of seeing whether his contingent support will be satisfied. All he has to do is to support a six months' hoist on this bill and insist that the government fulfil its promises in the field of urban transit before bringing back the bill. Standing in the House and declaring that his support is contingent on certain conditions is worthless. Once the bill goes through, it goes through. The hon. member for York East and the hon. member for Halton have an opportunity now either to support a six months' hoist of the bill or to vote against it.


John Gilbert: So much for the Liberal revolt.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am afraid that the Liberal revolt is, frankly, a bit revolting. In terms of urban problems in the area of the lower mainland, we have heard a lot about the problems in Toronto. I have had an opportunity to travel in Toronto when the Union station was jammed full, but I will tell you that the transport facilities available to people in Toronto are vastly superior to the transport facilities available in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
It is time someone in the House took notice of the fact that the worst transit urban area in Canada is in the lower mainland of B.C. Anyone who has come from that area and has had to go bumper-to-bumper for an hour or two in the morning in the Fraser Valley can testify to the problems and to the fact that the problems in Toronto, which are there and real, and the problems in Montreal, which also are there and real, still do not match the worst urban transportation situation in Canada. The reason for that is the crazy geography of the lower mainland. We have a long, narrow piece of land-a neck where people have to drive down a single corridor in order to get to work.
We have heard the promises made in 1974 about urban transportation. I want to remind the government of another promise, that there would be an urban transit corridor down the Fraser Valley providing easy rail commuter access to Vancouver. That is another promise that has not been fulfilled, another promise that no doubt this government does not intend to keep because it would not have the chance to use it again in the next election. I expect that if we have another election in a year or two we will hear the same old promise about an urban corridor down the Fraser Valley.


An hon. Member:: You will not get the same old government.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is right, we may not get the same old government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the way the
government keeps its promises: it keeps them to use them again.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In any event, the greater Vancouver regional district has made substantial progress in this matter, no thanks to the federal government, because they have not had decent funding from the federal authorities. One of the things we could be doing is to put a rapid transit system right down the middle of route 401 so that everyone sitting in a car could

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
recognize the advantage of urban transit. In fact, they might get out and try using it.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) gave us quite a long explanation about transportation. He said that many of us do not understand the country. He explained what a terrible piece of geography we live in here. I want to say that the hon. member does not understand the people in the country, although he might understand the geography. The people in this country are not looking for an ideological solution to transportation problems; they are looking for a rational approach. If you take a rational approach to transportation, and you get out of the free enterprise bias and look at public transportation as it exists in the various parts of the world, those people who so consistently vote Liberal and vote Tory would, I tell you, in a Gallup poll vote NDP on that issue in order to obtain a decent public transportation system in Canada.


An hon. Member:: We don't need any more NDP governments.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, we are going to be the government of Saskatchewan next time, too.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, you won't.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A couple of swallows came in from Saskatchewan yesterday. They think spring is here already. I can tell my Tory friends that in Saskatchewan the snow is still on the ground and will be on the ground for them next time around.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He'll be back tonight.


An hon. Member:: Let him talk until six o'clock. Who cares?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), has the floor for the purpose of speaking on Bill C-33. I suggest he should get back to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell you that the people of Saskatchewan are also interested in the problems of transportation. I would like to speak directly to the bill and deal with a couple of clauses in it. I think the two clauses which cause most reservation in this part of the House are, first, clause 3(2)(g) which reads:
Commercial viability should be an objective both in the operation of transportation services and in the provision of facilities and services in direct support thereof-
Commercial viability has not worked in terms of transportation in Canada since confederation, and to place it in this bill as the key to the bill is to defeat the purposes of a national

transportation system. That is why we cannot support the bill. It is not any kind of socialist dogma that we are talking about; it is just plain, old-fashioned common sense, because if you look at commercial viability and examine the user-pay philosophy, you should look at the question of cost benefit. Free enterprisers in this place examine transportation from a free enterprise point of view, and when they do they come up with a public transportation answer. There is no other answer to this question, because you have to take into consideration energy consumption in the cost-benefit study, decreased needs for highways, reduced pollution, reduced auto accidents and the subsidy to the private sector.
Let us examine some of the figures that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) used. The railway services in this country are paying their own way up to 74 per cent of the cost of their services. They are the most efficient in terms of carrying their own freight right now, especially the public service.


Mr. Parent:: You cannot even keep a straight face when you say it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The worst offender is marine services. They only pay 19 per cent of what the rest of the country put in to support those services. All those services contribute only 64 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Which Otto?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: He has contributed enough in this place. Air services have contributed 31 per cent. Every time you buy an air ticket and get on an aircraft you are paying only 31 per cent of the cost of that service. The railways have been sabotaged in this country out of a bias that the minister and his predecessors, both in Liberal and Conservative governments, have had against railway services.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 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 Provencher (Mr. Epp)- External Affairs-Soviet Union-Inquiry whether representations made by minister for release of Georgi Vins; the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-Manpower Grants to constituencies in respect of manpower mobility; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Northern Affairs-Log housing program for northern Canada.
March 3, 1977

It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


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


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe there is common agreement to proceed this afternoon in the next hour with a motion for papers standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Mr. Paproski:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF URANIUM REFINERY IN SASKATCHEWAN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery near Warman, Saskatchewan, or elsewhere in the province of Saskatchewan, by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, and copies of any agreement between the government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan or their respective agencies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising at this time is the refusal of the government to provide the documents 1 requested relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery in the province of Saskatchewan. The documents are agreements or other documents between the government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan, and any other documents of Eldorado Nuclear Limited relating to the establishment of a refinery in Saskatchewan. It is rather coincidental that this motion is being debated today. There have been two important by-elections in the province of Saskatchewan and I am very happy to say that the candidates of the Progressive Conservative party were successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not mention this to boast about a particular victory. I would never do that, because that would imply that the people of Saskatchewan did not know what they are doing-and they always know what they are doing, particularly yesterday.. It is significant that one of the platforms upon which the provincial Progressive Conservative party ran
Energy
was to the effect of sending a message to Ottawa and Regina; and I think it is important, when we consider the success of the Conservative party, to understand also that the two by-elections took place in ridings which are adjacent to what has now apparently been determined to be the prime location for the establishment of a uranium refinery.
I can tell hon. members that the people of these areas are very concerned about the development of this facility which apparently is to be built near Warman, Saskatchewan, which is about ten miles away from Saskatoon. The people there are concerned not so much about the fact that there is to be a government facility built there, as they are by the fact that they have been denied information by both levels of government, the federal government and the provincial government.
The matter has progressed to the point where the New Democratic Party, at its annual convention completed at the end of last year, received and passed a number of resolutions strongly condemning the provincial government for the position it has taken relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery near Saskatoon and the attitude which has been taken with respect to the giving out of information to the citizens of Saskatchewan relating to this project.
I was very surprised when the federal government took the position it did with respect to this motion. I want to remind the House of the response I received to a question I raised in the House last October 22 when I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) whether, in the spirit of openness mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, he would table all documents relating to the establishment of the refinery instead of keeping the matter wrapped in the kind of secrecy which would be appropriate to wartime circumstances.
I want to quote the minister's answer specifically so that I cannot be accused of misleading the House. 1 know that the minister and the parliamentary secretary would not want anyone to mislead the House with respect to this issue. I quote the minister's words so that we can be clear on what basis I am surprised that the documents I have requested are not being tabled. The minister said the following:
I am not sure that the discussions have yet moved to the point where it would be useful to table documents. I can tell the hon. member that when the time comes, I will be pleased to table them, provided we also get the approval of the province of Saskatchewan.
That was an unequivocal undertaking on the part of the minister, subject to the approval of the province of Saskatchewan, to table documents relating to the establishment of this refinery. Whatever those doduments are, there was no qualification or limitation in the minister's answer. As I understand it, it was an undertaking, and if the minister is a man to be believed I see no reason for him to refuse on a very flimsy excuse-which I will deal with-and on very flimsy grounds to table the documents which are of such importance and interest to the people of Saskatchewan.
At the time this motion was called, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the government refused to table the documents, ostensibly because they are commercial documents and the information is proprietary. In the name of common
3634

March 3, 1977
Energy
sense, when a facility of this kind is going to be built at public expense, a facility built by a Crown corporation of the government of Canada, what kind of logic would compel a government to say it does not want to disclose the documents because there is some sort of commercial aspect to the establishment of a uranium refinery?
In this country we do not have competition with regard to control over uranium. I do not understand the argument that matters concerning uranium are shared or are joint matters. The government of Canada has complete and absolute control over uranium once it comes out of the ground. It has control over the processing of uranium. It has control over the export of any products which occur by virtue of that processing. This is not a shared responsibility. It is not a question of competition with a number of private concerns. The government has absolute control, regardless of the fact that there is some commercial aspect.
It is rather difficult for me to understand what the government is referring to. I fail to understand why the government denies this information to the people of Saskatchewan on this basis, particularly when in the Speech from the Throne there is an undertaking on the part of the government to have a new spirit of openness and a new spirit of participatory democracy with the people of our country so that we out in the boondocks of Saskatchewan can have some idea of what is going on and what will happen with respect to the establishment of this kind of facility.
It is interesting to note that the government has set up a set of guidelines respecting the production of papers. The document I have here has been presented to the House of Commons, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is very familiar with it. This document sets out the exemptions with regard to the production of documents in the House of Commons. For the record, I would like to quote from it so there can be no misunderstanding of the spirit of these exemptions. The general principle stated in these guidelines is as follows:
To enable members of parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.


Maurice Dupras: Read on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I could go down the list and have the parliamentary secretary explain the reference to "proprietary nature". He will have his opportunity to speak.


Maurice Dupras: I have a list of the exemptions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The list is here, and it is quite clear. I am sure the government is going to say that this falls into some kind of contractual document. In reply to my question of October 22, the minister did not indicate he was going to claim

any exemption. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to explain whether the minister at that time was innocently or otherwise attempting to mislead the House or mislead me, as the representative of the constituency where this uranium refinery is proposed to be established, and whether he is to be believed or his words are to be taken with a grain of salt from now on. This matter is not without importance in the province of Saskatchewan, and naturally there is great interest there.
I do not have to point out to members of the House the extent of the concern expressed with respect to activities around Port Hope, Ontario. As an individual and a citizen of the area concerned, I am quite prepared to accept reasonable assurances from Eldorado and the federal government that the planned facility will be built with the greatest safeguards, the greatest consideration for environmental protection, and that there will be no danger of any description to people in the area. But every time the government stonewalls what I consider to be a legitimate and reasonable request for information or documents, I become apprehensive about what is going on. I do not know why the government is trying to conceal this information. Do they think they know better than the people of the area, or are they concerned that if the information gets out the people of the area will have something with which to attack them? I just do not know why the government is concerned about keeping this to themselves.
If ever I saw an example of the refusal to get information of a factural nature that would tend to support the passage of legislation introduced in this House by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, this is it. This is not the first time I have raised the matter in the House. The peculiar part of the whole process is that there was no prior announcement of the intention of the government to locate near Saskatoon. This information came to light by accident, by virtue of the discovery by a Conservative member of the Saskatchewan legislative assembly, Mr. Ralph Katzman, who represents Rosthern, of the fact that, in conjunction with Eldorado, the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation was acquiring for unnamed principals an option on land near Warman, Saskatchewan. After considerable digging he was able to determine the land was being acquired for Eldorado.
This matter has been going on for some time between the province and the government through Eldorado or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We find out now when it has become public and the accusations are rather hard on the people there. I think the parliamentary secretary should inform his minister what his counterpart in Saskatchewan thinks about Eldorado and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Saskatchewan minister of the environment, Mr. Neil Byers, has been very critical of Eldorado Nuclear. He says they are poor communicators and has expressed concern that they have started to assess the Warman site without providing information to the provinces on the advantages and disadvantages of it compared with other locations in the province. Yet a department of the federal government says they do not have all the information from Eldorado. Mr. Speaker, I do not spend much of my time supporting the
March 3, 1977

provincial New Democratic Party government. But if they cannot get the information in the province in which the facility is to be situated, I wonder what chance the average citizen or a member of parliament has.
An editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 26 points out that Mr. Byers should not stop there but perhaps should look at his own operation and point his finger at the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation for the way they have carried on. I must say 1 agree with that. The editorial reads:
A lot of Saskatchewan residents would agree that Eldorado had been less than eager to communicate on plans, whatever they may be, for a uranium refinery in this province. But most would also suggest that the provincial government should have been a lot closer to the action than the average person because of SEDCO's involvement.
The editorial continues:
-Saskatchewan has set up the structure for a public inquiry over Eldorado's plans, as well as other facets of uranium mining in the province and nuclear energy in general.
This government's abdication of its responsibility relating to nuclear power and the uranium industry has been the subject of a lot of inquiry on our part. Over a period of time the leader of my party has persistently requested that the government take up its responsibilities and set an inquiry in motion- preferably a parliamentary inquiry-with respect to the future of Canada's nuclear energy policy and the mining and exportation of uranium. He wrote to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlining his concern that the government had failed in the responsibilities given to it by statute and constitutional jurisdiction. He pointed out that the government had responsibility to assess and report to the people of Canada in a public forum, preferably in the parliamentary context through a special committee of the House. It has a responsibility to receive the representations and views of the widest possible range of citizens.
The abdication of responsibility is so bad that not only in the province of Ontario has the provincial authority been required, through the Porter commission, to look into this matter on its own, but in the province of Saskatchewan public pressure has been brought to bear. A commission was recently appointed under Mr. Justice E. D. Bayda to look into uranium development in the province. One of the things that interested me about that study is that the provincial government is looking into matters which I perceive to be exclusively federal in responsibility and jurisdiction.
What kind of government is it that refuses to give any information upon which people can base an assessment of what should be done in one facet of our nuclear energy program, the uranium side, and does not take any initiative to allow public participation in the development of policy across the country but relies on provincial jurisdiction?


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


An hon. Member:: Go on.
Energy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter about which I feel very strongly. The people of my area feel equally strongly about it.
I was surprised at the answers I received today to some questions I had placed on the order paper relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery in Saskatchewan. Incidentally, I note the presence in the chamber of the parliamentary secretary to the president of the privy council (Mr. Goodale). Having examined the returns, 1 can say that the information the government provided could not be called an answer even in the most general sense. True, there is information here, but nothing of significance or consequence which one could not obtain by examining some of Eldorado's press releases. One could not describe these returns as answers.
It appears that Eldorado Nuclear Limited has publicly announced that it has acquired options to purchase 1,200 acres near Warman, Saskatchewan; that detailed environmental studies are to be conducted; that arrangements for these studies are now being completed and will be announced in early 1977; and that 11 areas in Saskatchewan have been assessed environmentally with respect to 14 possible refinery locations. I ask, in passing, why are the people of the area concerned-indeed, all our people-about not being given information about such environmental studies? The minister indicated that environmental studies have continued for the past year, and are continuing. 1 suggest that this information ought to be in the hands of the people concerned. Otherwise, how are they reasonably and rationally to assess all the implications of the establishment of this refinery in Saskatchewan? They can only do it, I submit, if they possess the factual information commissioned by the government of Canada through Eldorado Nuclear Limited and paid for by the public.
The returns indicate that we shall see some form of public hearing. But that hearing will not be conducted until other, more detailed, environmental assessments have been made. 1 understand that the authorities are embarked upon a continuing process of assessing the environmental implications relating to the establishment of this refinery. They are concerned not only about air and water supply but about other factors which must be considered. Unfortunately, we have not been provided with the details of the matter. We have not seen any documents and there is no information available which could let the people of Saskatchewan determine if such a refinery should be established near Saskatoon. Further, we do not know which other areas have been considered. The returns omit to say how extensive an assessment has been made or how much has been done in this regard. Surely the provision of such information could not hurt any commercial enterprise of the government of Canada. How much was spent on these studies?
3636

March 3, 1977
Energy
Was it $10, or $100,000? We should know, because such studies may be nothing but window-dressing.
I am not against the development of nuclear energy per se. But I am concerned because although 1 represent the constituency in which it is proposed to place this refinery, I would have been given more information and seen more evidence of co-operation if I were a citizen of Tanzania or Outer Mongolia. Is this the way a representative government should run its affairs? Surely this shows how badly we need a freedom of information act.
I am in the opposition, true, but I do not think the provision of this information would hurt the government. Surely, this issue shows the need for the immediate passage of a freedom of information bill as suggested by my colleague for Peace River. If such legislation were adopted, the information would be available. I wish that an independent arbitrator, judge, or someone responsible within the government would urge the making public of this kind of information so that the people of the area concerned would know where the uranium refinery is to be established.
We have often criticized our neighbours to the south, but at least they took the initiative with respect to freedom of information-an initiative we should imitate. Freedom of information legislation is long overdue. Therefore, I am pleased to note the presence of my colleague for Peace River and I hope he will participate in this debate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two comments about the motion presently before the House. I am interested in uranium production, refining and use in Canada and in the world. The refinery which is to be established in Saskatchewan of which the hon. member spoke will be the result of the policy adopted by the federal government in September, 1974. That policy proposed that the further upgrading of uranium and the "value added" process with respect to uranium produced in Canada should take place in this country, for in that way we could develop our uranium refining capacity in Canada and ensure that more jobs would stay in this country. At the time of the adoption of this policy, between 4,000 and 5,000 tons of uranium yellow cake were produced in this country.
The new uranium mine which came on-stream in Saskatchewan during the past year will lead to increased production, and the traditional producing areas of Beaver Lodge northern Saskatchewan, and Elliot Lake, Ontario, will also contribute to this increased production in Canada. I believe that by 1985 production in this country will amount to some 15,000 tons per year of yellow cake. The increased production of this mineral; will be tremendously valuable to Canada. Indeed, its value is escalating rapidly. Five or six years ago, uranium yellow cake sold at between $5 and $6 per pound. Today's spot prices are as high are as high as $40 a pound. Therefore, the further upgrading of our uranium to uranium hexafluoride or uranium oxide is important for our country.

I want to carry that argument a little bit further. I suggest that wherever possible uranium refineries should be located close by the areas where uranium is produced. For example, in Ontario our present refining capacity is located in southern Ontario. As we move to have additional uranium refineries constructed in the province, these should be located in northern Ontario where the principal mines are located. The secondary manufacturing processing jobs would then be located in the north.
Since 1969 we adopted a policy of regional development in Canada. It is designed to create more equality between the various areas of our country by having secondary manufacturing and processing plants locate in the slow growth areas of our country. We have provided incentives through the R.D.I.A. Act. If we have a policy where we take taxpayers' dollars to provide incentives to locate plants in designated areas of our country, we should carry it a step further and see that Crown corporations such as Eldorado locate their plants in the slow growth areas of Canada.
If we look at the plan being proposed for Ontario, we see that there exists an opportunity for this to be located on the north shore of Lake Fluron. It would provide 150 or 200 new jobs processing the resources of that part of Canada.
If we look at the unemployment levels in certain areas of the north shore of Lake Huron, we see that over $12 million has been paid as an average over the past four or five years in unemployment insurance benefits. We see large expenditures for the LIP and Canada Works programs. The LIP program has provided seasonal jobs during the winter months. Now with the Canada Works program it will cover other times of the year as well. There is a great advantage in seeing plants of this nature locate in northern Ontario where they would provide the jobs.
There is another aspect to the matter which bears consideration. If we locate uranium refineries close to areas where the productive capacity of the mines exist, we have an opportunity to dispose of the nuclear waste from the uranium refineries in the uranium disposal waste facilities that are there for uranium mines. That would seem to be a wise move rather than establishing new nuclear waste disposal sites at various locations throughout the country. Indeed, many people who have studied this problem believe that our nuclear waste should be put back into worked out uranium mines which is the ultimate place to dispose of nuclear waste.
Another aspect of locating uranium refineries in the general area of the producing mines is the public acceptance of this type of facility. In the north shore area, for example, practically every municipality has passed a resolution supporting the second uranium refinery for Ontario being located in the north shore area. Chambers of commerce in most communities in the area have supported the location of a refinery in that area, as well as many individuals and community groups. There is that public acceptance, understanding, and knowledge of the further processing of uranium in an area where there already is uranium production.
March 3, 1977

We should look at the sense of justice to the uranium producing areas which went through very severe economic crises during the sixties. Hon. members will recall that in the fifties there was great pressure to produce uranium for military purposes for the United States. During the sixties, the agreements which had been reached during the fifties for further options of production of uranium were cancelled.
Communities like Elliot Lake practically collapsed. They went from 20,000 or 25,000 people down to 5,000 or 6,000. The build-up from that to the present day situation, where there is a tremendous boom and expansion taking place, was long delayed because of the very uncertain future of uranium production during the sixties and early seventies. These communities have seen very difficult periods of time.
The situation now is very different. The ore bodies in areas like Algoma are worth dozens of billions of dollars with today's value of uranium. There is a strong feeling that areas like this should not only have the mining and plant jobs that occur with a uranium mining operation, but the secondary processing jobs should be located in those communities as well.
If we look at the uranium stock piling program of the sixties, we see that the uranium, most of which comes from Elliot Lake and is now stored by the government, has produced a profit of several hundreds of millions of dollars for the government.
If we look at the kinds of production of uranium ore that will take place during the next quarter century and the amount of tax dollars and royalties which will be realized by the federal and provincial governments, we see revenues flowing into federal and provincial coffers from this source ranking in the billions of dollars.
There is a very strong feeling that when uranium refineries are located in Ontario they should be located in the north. Thus not only would the mining jobs be realized, but also the jobs in secondary processing plants.
We realize that studies which have been carried out in Ontario, like those carried out in Saskatchewan, into the environment and economic feasibility play a factor. Indeed there would probably be an additional cost to locate a plant like this in northern Ontario. In addition to looking at the economic factors, I believe we should look at public acceptance and the possibility of the disposal of waste in the worked out uranium mines. These are compensating factors that should be recognized by the government and by Crown corporations such as Eldorado.
I hope these considerations will be taken into account by the government and by the Crown corporation when they locate plants like this, whether it be in northern Ontario where we have such a tremendous productive capacity for this mineral, or in Saskatchewan with its new discoveries in certain areas where it looks as though there will be significant production of uranium in the next quarter century.
Energy


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on seizing the initiative to bring before the House and ultimately, I hope, before the people of Canada, this important issue touching upon the right of the people to be informed regarding this project, and, incidentally, their right to be informed generally.
The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) made a very reasoned speech in favour of the development of nuclear power, but that is not the issue. We are not dealing with that aspect today. 1 think he made a good speech. I admire the hon. member, though I disagree with him from time to time, as I admire the parliamentary secretary who, no doubt, will be speaking later and who, as an agent for the government, will be compelled to state an argument for which I imagine he has no real heart. After I have finished speaking, I hope he will acknowledge this to me.
The reasons assigned by the parliamentary secretary to this House for refusing to make the documents available were that since they related to the establishment of a refinery they were commercial documents and the information was proprietary. First of all, I should say that this is not among the exemptions cited in the list which was brought down by the then president of the privy council on March 17, 1973. It does not fall squarely within any of the exemptions stated there, and consequently I would ask the parliamentary secretary to identify which of the 16 grounds for exemption he considers to be operative in this case.


Maurice Dupras: I am addressing myself now to that very task.


Gerald William Baldwin: The parliamentary secretary might need a month to define the ground on which he can base his defence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even so, it is a list unilaterally compiled!


Gerald William Baldwin: To whom does this information belong? Who pays for it? This information, Mr. Speaker, is the property of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We are dealing in this case with nuclear energy, a very dangerous field. I can understand why so many people are security minded about it. Thirty or 40 years ago, after the second world war, as developments in the atomic energy field were passing into civilian hands, there was a great deal of secrecy attached to it. The United States passed legislation imposing stringent secrecy with regard to the dissemination of certain information, and this attitude spilled over into Canada. But that was 35 or 40 years ago. We are now in a different era.
We have had experience, particularly in Ontario, of the serious consequences of the development of atomic energy. There is grave apprehension on the part of a great many people in Ontario and elsewhere because of developments in

March 3, 1977
Energy
Port Hope, Elliot Lake, and other places. 1 am sure that all kinds of assurances were given by the government and by the corporation at that time to the people living in the areas involved, just as I have no doubt that assurances will be given to the people of Saskatchewan. But in the light of what has happened, in the light of the serious concern felt by knowledgeable people in Canada and in other parts of the world, it is not good enough for us to accept bland assurances by government people, even by people as eminent as the parliamentary secretary, that everything is perfectly all right and that there is no need for us to be given the information for which we are asking.
I recall examining one government witness in connection with this question of the provision of information. He reacted with astonishment and alarm. He asked, "Why should you know what our experts know?"
My contention is that this information we are seeking today should be the property of the people. It relates, in particular, to those living in the area which is to be developed as a nuclear project. After all, it is their health, their lives, their property and their future which are at stake. Surely in these circumstances they should be privy to all decisions which are made, and the information should be available to them as long as it does not come within the category of being contrary to national security.
The parliamentary secretary says it is a commercial enterprise. There are indeed circumstances in which information which might give advantages to competitors of a corporation ought to be withheld. But this is not being cited as one of the grounds for withholding information in this case. I suggest as strongly as I can, because of what we know, that if there is any proprietary right at all here, that right is the property of the people of Canada. And the only way this right can be asserted is through the disclosure of the information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar referred to the principles guiding the government when dealing with motions for the production of papers. There is a paragraph in the guidelines about protecting the security of the state. All too often, it seems to me, what we are really looking after is the security of the Liberal party and I, for one, believe there is a great distinction between the security of the state and the security of the Liberal party. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the security of the state is threatened by the continued security of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I heard a very interesting statement over the radio the other day. At the time of the Viet Nam war, when the Nixon administration found itself caught up in some of the lies and deception it had practised with regard to the translation of the war into Cambodia and elsewhere, an assistant secretary of the U.S. defence department, confronted with this situation at a press conference, said, boldly, "Every government has a right to lie to save itself." That is the kind of

statement which, we fear, would be approved by all governments. The government opposite is particularly adept at it; from its experience in the last 20 or 30 years it has become expert at lying to defend itself.


Maurice Dupras: That should be beneath your dignity.


Gerald William Baldwin: That brings me to the right of the government to refuse the information which the hon. member is requesting. I suggest that even the parliamentary secretary will find it difficult to bring this within one of the 16 grounds set out in the guidelines, however much ingenuity he exercises.
Only today we were given an example of the way in which the government conceals information. Only today, with this very debate in mind, I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) when he intends to do something about freedom of information. We have had to look outside the country at what was said by the vice-president of a corporation in Korea, and at some information which the American Security Commission was able to elicit due to the more advanced laws that exist in that country. I am compelled to sit here and wait for information to be given through sources of that kind. We are not allowed to obtain it ourselves.
The President of the Privy Council made a very smart alecky reply which is not worthy of him. He is a very good debater, a very good parliamentarian, but I think he slipped when he said that the opposition in the Public Accounts Committee were not doing their job. It is a matter of common knowledge, a matter of fact-everybody knows this-that the deception, the autocracy and contempt shown by those supporting the government, and by some of the witnesses appearing before that committee, have frustrated, and inhibited, and made it impossible for the opposition members of that committee to get the information they should have. There was just no way they could do it under the laws we have in Canada today.
As my hon. friend has said, information of a contractual nature is surely the sort of information that should be open. A contract has been signed, and we must know what the safeguards are, the financial implications, what is involved in it for the people of the district, and what is going to be put in that area.
Apparently some decisions have been made, some contracts entered into. Because of the dangerous nature of the project, it seems to me it would be most difficult for any member of the public or any member of the government to say, "We are going to refuse you this information." Surely that is proof complete of the requirement in this country for information which would be available to people when requested.
We all agree there have to be exemptions, but this is not a case for exemption. The refusal of the government to give these facts and information constitutes a contempt of this parliament, of the people of Canada. I hope when this matter comes to a vote, as it will in due course, that hon. members on the other side, who will have to meet their electors at the polls one of these days, will remember well what they do. I suggest,
March 3, 1977

through you, Mr. Speaker, to them that it will be held against them if they vote against this motion.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, my two distinguished colleagues, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and his seatmate, the very distinguished member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), have taken so much time that I will not attempt to answer all their arguments. Nevertheless, I should like to respond to a few of their remarks in regard to some of the questions that they raised.
First of all I should like to deal with the grounds I was invited to mention regarding the production of papers, as well as the exemptions to the criteria to be applied in determining whether government papers or documents should be precluded from production. I would invite my two colleagues to consider exemption No. 4, which is as follows:
Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces inter se; (the release of papers received from provinces to be subject to the consent of the originating province).
Sedco is the company that Eldorado requested to make these studies. Exemption No. 5 reads:
Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons.
It is obvious that this is a strong enough ground on which to deny some of the information. As I begin to list all the instances in which an attempt has been made to give more information to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar I think it will be apparent that we began to supply information as early as July 6, 1976. This was followed by instances on July 26, 1976; October 22, November 8, November 18, December 21; January 17, 1977, again on January 18, February 11, March 1, and today. The questions have been put on the order paper by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, Nos. 820, 821, 853 and 856. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that information has been made available in these cases.
For the benefit of the hon. member I should also read exemption No. 10:
Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
Finally, exemption No. 16:
Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
It is obvious that such a situation exists here. Before I forget, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar mentioned that we do not know what the Saskatchewan government thinks of the project. I already know what Jack Messer, the industry and commerce minister, thinks about the project, and I can see from the nod of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that he too knows.
Let me quote some of the information that was given in a speech by the premier of Saskatchewan on November 8 last. Among other things the premier said:
Our party and our government have been committed to the peaceful use of atomic energy in the world for over 20 years. Uranium has been mined, yellow
National Transportation Act
cake has been produced and exported from this province continuously for more than 20 years and this is still taking place.
This is nothing new in Saskatchewan. Further he said:
The government of Saskatchewan has a policy that no major industrial enterprise should be proceeded with without the proposed developer giving a detailed outline of the project proposed, following which there is to be an environmental impact study (to be made public)-
This is exactly what is going to take place, as I have told the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar many times in this House.
-following which there are to be public hearings.
I could speak until seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, about all the information that we have supplied.
The hon. member for Peace River mentioned the financial implications of this project.


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 p.m.
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 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.
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, this afternoon at five o'clock when I concluded my preliminary remarks we were actually looking at the bill itself, which is somewhat unique in this Chamber. From time to time I think it is useful for members to read what they are passing.
I want now to refer to proposed section 3(2) (d), which I will quote. It is the prime principle of this legislation which is now enshrined in the law that in the field of transportation
-competition within and between modes of transport should be encouraged where economic and technical factors permit;

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
That is the second major reason why this party cannot support the bill. What is outlined here is the enshrinement of the failure of the transportation policy of this and previous governments. It enshrines the kind of failure that we had right here in Ottawa when we put STOL aircraft to fly between this city and Montreal. That is the kind of competitiveness that is enshrined in the bill. If we continue to use that kind of philosophy in providing transportation in Canada, we will dig ourselves deeper and deeper into the mire. We will get into a hole which is even larger than the one we have now. When you go for the principle of competition between private carriers, what you will find is that the private carriers will take all the profitable parts of transportation, and the rest, us suckers, will carry the bill. That is what will happen to an even worse degree now. When you enshrine that principle, you eliminate the possibility of a cross-subsidy. Cross-subsidization means that with viable, efficient and profitable transport you eliminate the possibility of using the revenues to subsidize areas in the country which will never pay for themselves. They will never pay for themselves because that is not the kind of country in which we live. We do not have a situation like the situation in western Europe. Our country is almost unique in terms of transportation. The Soviet Union is one of the other countries in the world which faces the same kind of problems we have.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but they give service.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am glad to see that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is continuing his support of the Soviet Union. I appreciate his views. It is good to see that the Soviet Union has friends in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is one of those Red Tories.


Mr. Friesen:: One of those red-in-the-face Tories.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I do not think we should compare our transportation system with that of the Soviet Union. I suspect theirs is better, although I have not had the advantage of examining it. I suspect that our transportation system also has some advantages, but if I could just reiterate my point about eliminating the possibility of cross subsidy, when you allow private carriers to cream off the best part of the transportation system, the rest of the country has to carry the load for those parts which will always find themselves in a losing position.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Like Air Canada.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We talked this afternoon about who really pays for transport in this country. There is not a single system of transport which is not subsidized. Every time we walk on a sidewalk we should remember that the municipality subsidizes that sidewalk. The roads we drive on are subsidized. What really is amazing is that every time we take an aircraft our ticket pays only 31 per cent of the cost of that service. We are

not paying for the air traffic controllers, for the runways, or for the Mirabels across this country.
From this minister we have seen an elitist transportation policy. It is nice for us as members of parliament to fly back and forth across the country, but it is not much good for those who do not fly and, believe it or not, the vast majority of people of this country rarely, if ever, use an aircraft. If we could keep that in mind we could reverse these priorities a little bit, and we could see to it that ordinary people would have a proper and efficient means of transport. However, we will not have that as long as we enshrine these two principles into the law. One is the principle of competition between existing modes of transport, and the second is commercial viability.
Most people in this House have not had a chance, but we on the west coast have had a chance to examine the new policy the minister is introducing, the user pay concept. We have seen that in operation. We are the pilot project which the minister is using to demonstrate his user pay philosophy. The minister has accomplished some great things so far. I want to list some of the benefits the user pay concept has brought to British Columbia.
The minister has dismembered a viable company with ships which were specially constructed for the purpose of supplying isolated ports in British Columbia. That company could have operated with a profit had the minister simply followed the report of his own advisers. I refer to the Acres report, which suggested those ships could have been upgraded with further capital investment, and we would not have needed to subsidize that particular service. Instead, because of a rash and, I would say, ideological decision, or a decision which was without any flexibility at all, the minister destroyed a viable company.
This concept left 300 people working in that company without work. Some, however, did find work. Six jobs for these seamen were found in Halifax. That is the extent to which they have been able to re-employ the workers who lost their jobs as a result of the minister's destruction of Northland Navigation. I am glad to see the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) in the House because most of the people who live in his riding are very interested in finding out what is going to happen.
Another thing the user pay concept has brought about is the loss of all the spin-offs as a result of the drying up of that water transportation business. I received a letter today from longshoremen in Prince Rupert who are now crying because they do not have enough cargo to keep them working. The port is being dried up to some extent. There has been a reduction in the amount of cargo which is being carried to that port, and not least of all is the disruption of normal communication to over 100 communities in the isolated parts of British Columbia.
What the minister has really done in a back-handed way has been to dump the entire passenger load and the entire traffic burden on the province of British Columbia. However, I am not going to get too excited about this because I think the minister has a rabbit in his hat, or something in his pocket. He
March 3, 1977

has been out in British Columbia. I know he has been working very hard. 1 would say he has been working in desperation more than anything else, but he has been working very hard.
I certainly give the minister credit for trying to pull his own chestnuts out of the fire. He is always running around trying to solve problems he has created. It is a wonderful way to seem busy all the time. The minister creates a disaster and goes back, grabs a bucket of water, and tries to put out the fire. That is what he has been doing in British Columbia, and 1 hope for the sake of British Columbians that he has something for us. I hope he is able to produce something in the way of rational transportation, something different from sending the Prince Rupert into Bella Bella, letting the lifeboat over the side to try to load the passengers from Bella Bella. That was an excellent challenge to the people of Bella Bella. I thought they were not as amused as they should have been, and we were lucky we did not lose anyone over the side, but it worked. That is another one of those little pilot projects upon which the minister is working. He just drops those lifeboats over the side and gets everybody to row out.
1 would like to tell the minister that just because he is running the Lumba Lumba out of Prince Rupert does not mean we are in Tahiti. We actually need boats to move people out to those vessels. This really would be a laughable subject if it were not so serious to the people of British Columbia. This is a serious situation for isolated ports in British Columbia. Somebody should write a novel about what has happened to water transport in British Columbia.
We do know one thing, though, and that is that there are Liberal members of parliament from British Columbia who have been working very hard at this problem. Three of those members, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) were very proud to say that they were involved in the planning of this decision. There was a super press release, but the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin found out that it was not such a good plan, so he jumped out right away. He got off the boat.
The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin did not even use a lifeboat; he dived in right away. He did not fool around, and I must give him credit for getting off that sinking ship. Then there was the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), who did not quite dive off the boat; she just stood on the burning deck and said, "My resignation is coming in six weeks if this ship burns". That is what she said. That is one of the promises we thought might be kept, but that was last fall and we have been waiting to see the resignation come. She is hanging in there and I think she has learned how to skate. Maybe it is the practice she had on the canal, but she has been skating very fast. She is making Guy Lafleur look foolish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Transportation Act


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wish she were here, Mr. Speaker, for she is a charming lady and I always like to hear what she has to say.
We are faced with this strange situation where all these Liberal backbenchers got together to develop this plan for British Columbia. They went up in the aircraft, but when they found out that it did not fly they said, "Somebody else made it, we are getting out."
Where do we go from here? I expect the minister is going to make an announcement, so let us try to guess what it might be.
I expect that the routes from Prince Rupert to the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver to Nanaimo, and Tawassan to Victoria are to be part of the trans-Canada highway. If it is anything less than that, then it seems to me that British Columbia is still getting a bad deal. There is a special reason why that is a bad deal. We usually talk about national unity in connection with the problems of Quebec, but when this country was formed Sir John A. Macdonald promised British Columbia a rail line to Victoria.


An hon. Member:: He was a Tory.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It has never been delivered. There is a breach of contract somewhere. Perhaps British Columbia will have to take the federal government to court for breach of contract because it did not provide the service promised under which, by contract, we came into this wonderful country. The pending announcement should be to the effect that these three routes will form part of the trans-Canada highway. They are part of a federal obligation made in 1871 to the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Lee:: 1 did not know Sir John promised this highway.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We cannot help illiteracy!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer now to an editorial in a newspaper that has been a traditional friend of the Liberal party of Canada, the Vancouver Sun. It is remarkably loyal to the Liberal party, but it looked in the mirror and said, "We just cannot keep supporting these people." The editorial of November 4-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't read the one of November 5; that is against me.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No, they like you. They want to keep you Neanderthals alive. Mr. Speaker, the editorial reads in part as follows:
And although there is to be some kind of substitute for the service, what happened leaves a distinctly bad taste in the mouth.
Mr. Lang's conduct throughout this affair smacks of callous indifference to the needs of the company, its employees and the people of the coastal villages it has been serving. In essence, he held them to ransom in an attempt to force the provincial government to assume full responsibility for coastal shipping, then cast them aside when half the ransom was paid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It seems strange that in this country we have an adequate description of the geography but not an adequate description of the kind of people who live here. 1 believe the

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
people want to keep this country together, and I believe that is true of every part of the country. There is no more important way to keep the country together than have people exchange visits. We are running empty passenger trains back and forth, and they are losing money. The senior citizens in my riding would like a chance to travel in those empty cars. They would travel on standby and a nominal fare could be charged. Then they could see the province of Quebec and perhaps understand its problems, and Quebecers could understand the problems of British Columbia, if we had the courage to use our public transportation system to keep this country together.
The theme of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a public transportation company and should not confuse it with the free enterprise ethic and competitiveness in the system. That does not work. We can make it help hold the country together if the government will have the courage to use the system and have people travel everywhere in Canada so that they can understand what a great country we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in the debate today respecting Bill C-33. First of all I want to say that I support the bill. I have noticed the serious tone of the debate, and it is easy to understand why it would be serious when we consider that the total budget for the department for 1977-78 is well over $1 billion.
I wish to put forward some facts concerning these figures. For example, the number of Transport Canada employees, including the Canadian Transport Commission, is 21,629; Air Canada 20,600; Canadian National Railways, 82,256; and the approximate total for Crown corporations including the National Harbours Board, 108,000.
When we look at the tax dollars that form the total budget of Transport Canada, we can quickly come to the position of support for a bill which would give the minister more power to carry out his responsibilities.
In recent years there have been suggestions about a Canadian merchant navy that would put us in a better position to control the shipment of our natural resources, and there has been talk of action in regard to the Canadian railway debt similar to that recently announced for the St. Lawrence Seaway debt.
The figures will not only show but prove the importance of transportation policies and of planning together with general operations across the country. However, one cannot but wonder about the top-heavy bureaucracy found within the Department of Transport, with its many technocrats and bureaucrats. What chance of survival do these programs and policies have after they have gone through so many hands, and what one could term the watering down process?
I suggest that anyone familiar with Canadian transportation history will say that this is an excellent time to review possible
[Mr. Leggall.)
changes and to consider changing the structure and hierarchy of the Department of Transport. Therefore, logically, we ought to establish a superministry of transport, under which would come two junior ministries with responsibility for implementing our transport policy. Certainly the present job is too onerous for one man. I suggest that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) cannot at the same time oversee the day-to-day operations of the ministry of transport, the CNR and Air Canada while carrying out his additional responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Johnston:: Who wrote that-Otto Lang?


Maurice James Harquail: I now wish to mention something I have thought for some time. We need to alter the present top-heavy, all-too-powerful bureaucratic structure. If we are to resolve our current problems, I suggest we should take the responsibility away from deputy ministers who are not elected and give it to elected representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: I have thought of some new titles. For instance, deputy ministers could be known as chief administrators, or chiefs of Staff, and parliamentary secretaries as deputy ministers reporting directly to the House. For too long we have heard references about various departments of the federal government working at cross-purposes. This has been counterproductive and created, indeed compounded, some of our present problems.
While considering amendments to the act I suggest that we should look closely at how efficiently the large numbers of employees presently employed by MOT do their work. I sometimes feel that if they are not compelled to work efficiently and productively they could well fall into the category of the invisible unemployed.
I now mention transport subsidies, specifically in the Atlantic region, and wish to put some facts and figures on record. Three major transport subsidy payments, covering five areas, transferred approximately $280 million to the Atlantic region in 1976. These payments can be broken down as follows: for rail passenger subsidy, $35 million; ferry and coastal services, $100 million; west bound freight subsidies, to rail $8 million, and to truck $3.5 million; west bound selective freight, to rail $2 million, and to truck $1.5 million; intra-provincial freight subsidy, to rail $10 million, and to truck $20 million. Where will all this money go when the proposed changes regarding these subsidies are implemented? Keep in mind that in excess of $1 billion has already been allotted to the Department of Transport budget. Therefore it should be obvious that only a small percentage of the department's total expenditures have application to the Atlantic provinces.
Considering recent decisions concerning subsidies, and previous speakers spoke about subsidies to east and west coast ferries, it is clear that we must let the public understand the philosophy which will lead to a change in subsidy policy in Canada. We have already seen evidence of the workings of this philosophy on both the east and west coasts. One cannot cut
March 3, 1977

subsidies without negotiating and consulting with those who entered into original agreements in good faith. Agreements have been reached with certain provinces. I say that we must be cautious in our attempts to reduce subsidies in various provinces. Surely one will not argue that the matter of reducing assistance with respect to the Crowsnest Pass ought to have been addressed some 20 years ago. Why not commence negotiations to bring that particular agreement into line with modern day needs? If an agency which requires 30 per cent assistance receives a subsidy of 70 per cent, I am sure the Canadian people would want that particular subsidy to be discussed, negotiated, and adjusted.
We must be cautious not to forget our direct responsibilities. I say this because subsidy payments in the estimates submitted this morning by the Minister of Transport accounted for more than half the 1977-78 budget of the department, or more than $500 million.
When the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications visited the west coast last year it saw the harbour facilities at Vancouver, and visited Seattle, U.S.A. We quickly saw that equipment at Vancouver needed modernization. I am speaking both of dry dock facilities and over-the-side equipment for loading goods and grain. Obviously, we shall need to do something to remain competitive. We must upgrade our facilities to maintain our excellent reputation and induce ships to use our ports on the west coast, as well as those on the east coast. We shall need to spend money on additional equipment, and on upgrading existing facilities at Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick, as well.
I now turn to the matter of debt. The CN debt has already been mentioned, and we know Air Canada incurred a $25 million deficit last year. This morning, when the committee was considering the 1977-78 estimates, I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport. I know that steps will be taken, under spending policies to be implemented, to curb, if not eliminate, that deficit.
Talking of Air Canada brings me to the problems confronting Eastern Provincial Airways serving Atlantic Canada, and the airline's application before the Canadian Transport Commission last year. I cannot participate in this debate without, in all justice, stating the case of the citizens of Atlantic Canada. The chairman of the air branch of the commission brought down a most unsatisfactory decision. He is a westerner and visited the Maritimes more than once to conduct hearings.
Consider the effort that goes into the presentations that are made to the air branch of the Canadian Transport Commission. Many long hours and a lot of money go into their preparation. What is the result? Last December the decision was handed down by the chairman of the committee. He did not give a positive consideration to the applications placed before the CTC. The applicants were willing, ready and able to implement the program of transportation for which they were seeking the class two licence. In its wisdom, the CTC air
National Transportation Act
branch decided to give it to a firm which had encountered financial difficulties three months prior to the decision being handed down.
Decisions of this type encourage me to speak in favour of the amendments contained in Bill C-33. The bill recommends that some of the decision making process be taken out of the hands of the CTC and more of this power given to the Minister of Transport.
I witnessed the disppointment and frustration as the result of the negative approach taken by the air branch of the CTC with regard to giving positive consideration to the plight of the citizens of Atlantic Canada. It almost brings one to look for the resignation of, if not the whole board, at least the chairman.
Consider the expenditure involved in conducting these hearings. Think of the time, effort and investment, both financial and sweat equity, that are contributed to these hearings. With a negative response like that, we wonder whether it is worth wasting our time following that type of procedure.
In central Canada there is talk of improving the Windsor corridor. We hear about better transportation for Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver. However, in 1977 there is no modern air passenger service linking the four Atlantic provinces.
I live in northern New Brunswick. In order to travel to Halifax, I have to get on a train at six o'clock in the morning. Twelve hours later I arrive in Halifax. No modern air facilities are available. In order to get to the capital of the province of New Brunswick I have to spend six hours on roads that are exactly not up to trans-Canada specifications.


Mr. B6chard:: Speak to the provincial government.


Maurice James Harquail: If I understand the news correctly, they have problems other than highways at the moment. However, that is not what I wanted to speak about.
There has been positive input by DREE and the Department of Transport to try to eradicate that kind of situation. There was a recent announcement of $42 million to match the $10 million or $11 million being put in by the province to continue improving the highway network between Moncton and Camp-bellton, New Brunswick, Route 11. Another $5.5 million will be spent on Route 17. There is no question as to the urgency, considering how many years the trans-Canada has been completed from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
It is about time the provincial government accepted its responsibility to complete that important link which brings us to la Belle Province and the Gaspe area, not only for economic reasons and the whole question of regional development but the very matter of tourism.
To come back to the negative decision by the Canadian Transport Commission, the applicant that had the technical wherewithal to implement that service did not receive a favourable hearing. E.P.A. Ltd. could not get approval for a class two licence. E.P.A. Ltd. recently cancelled its order with the de Havilland Corporation at Downsview for a Dash-7. This

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
50 passenger aircraft would have been used to link the four Atlantic provinces. It is the obvious answer to a most serious problem.
From conversation with the Council of Maritime Premiers and other elected representatives, I know they have not given up on this. In fact they are now working in earnest. If that is the attitude of those who sit on the board and conduct the hearings, we will have to set our sails and cut the cloth accordingly.
I am convinced there will be complete co-operation and support from all elected representatives from that area for a new approach. In the very near future a new application will be made to the Ministry of Transport for a more favourable consideration with regard to the approval of funds in order that we in the maritimes might have modern air facilities. We would like to enjoy the same facilities as the rest of Canadians.
I support the view that was expressed previously with regard to the top heaviness of various departments. A good example is in the Department of Transport and the Crown corporations such CN and Air Canada.
There should be a better system for input by members of this House. Much debate could go on as to what the format should be. I stated previously that we should look seriously at stripping some of the powers away from the too powerful bureaucrats such as deputy ministers who sometimes get carried away with their ivory tower building. They forget the human side, the needs and aspirations of Canadians on many different fronts.
One solution with regard to the day to day operations of corporations such as CN and Air Canada might be to have more input by politicians at some level, whether they sit directly on the board or act as advisers. I am not looking for more structure. We have enough of that now. However, it is time to bring some of the decision making process to where it should be, with the elected representatives.
There is no question but that our transportation system, rail and air, is one of the best operated compared with other countries. Notwithstanding the problems of wrestling with the media, the present minister is very dedicated and hard working. He has to tolerate jabs and babblings in our day-to-day deliberations and debate in this House. I am sure all serious Canadians will agree with me when I say this minister has dedicated his energy 100 per cent in an effort to come to grips with the problems which face us. The importance of the transportation sector and the proportion of Canadian tax dollars which it consumes make it evident that the time has come not only to support the amendments in Bill C-33 but to support the minister in a more positive way so that in the implementation of these policies he can bring about even better solutions.
We have heard presentations by members in all quarters of the House, both in this Chamber and in committees, in favour of the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine. While no provision is made for this in the estimates, this is a

possibility we ought seriously to consider especially in the light of such developments as the export of increasing quantities of coal to Japan. There is no reason why we should not place ourselves in the position of exercising better control over the distribution of our national resources.
I conclude, as I began, by saying I will support the amendments contained in Bill C-33.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I must say at the outset that I was more than a little surprised that the minister himself did not choose to present the first major revision of the National Transportation Act since its passage almost ten years ago. Though he has not addressed the House on this bill, I trust he has read the speech which was delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) on his behalf, and that at least he approved it. It would be fair, I suggest, to hold him in some way accountable for what was said by the Minister of Justice when he introduced this measure.
In a way, the absence of the minister was ironic. The minister chose not to be present, but on the other hand he is asking for great power to be restored to the Department of Transport with respect to the day-to-day workings of the transportation system. Under the new legislation, policies could be changed at will and transportation programs could be made to operate to the great benefit of certain regions or, conversely to their detriment. As I say, I find it passing strange that the minister should have chosen not to be present on this occasion, and I see that my feelings are shared by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
Nevertheless, we are grateful that the hon. gentleman, among all the ministers who have presided over the National Transportation Act, has been the most frank. He alone has been prepared to say what none of his predecessors dared say, that is, that the legislation enacted by Mr. Pickersgill was an attempt to put the transportation system on a footing completely different from that of a policy based on consideration for the social and economic well-being of the country as a whole. It is clear in retrospect-and later I should like to quote a passage from the remarks of the Minister of Justice, one which no doubt reflects the minister's own views-that the fundamental shift which took place as a result of the Mac-Pherson Royal Commission and later the Transportation Act, was to enunciate that a first priority would be to make a transportation system in this country commercially viable and that in a sense every other aspect of transportation policy would have to be subservient to that basic goal and commitment.
I suppose that anyone who looks at this concept superficially would say it makes a great deal of sense-surely a transportation system should be commercially viable and efficient to the extent possible. The only difficulty is that when we make this the main raison d'etre of a transportation policy we begin to fly in the face of the economic, social, and political history of this country. A number of speakers in the debate have referred to this aspect and to the damage which the act and its administration have done to the several regions. Indeed, it was
March 3, 1977

the minister's own surrogate, the Minister of Justice, who said, on Tuesday, I think it was-and I quote from page 3526 of Hansard-referring to the probable national implications of various direct and indirect freight subsidies:
Most of these were implemented when the economic and transportation needs of the West, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces were significantly different from what they will be in the coming decades. Some of these programs, however well-intentioned and effective years ago, now actually inhibit the development of certain regions and parts of the transportation system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has proposed changes in a number of these assistance programs.
Those of us who come from the more distant regions of the country should be grateful for two things. First, for recognition that the actual impact of the transportation policy has for the last decade been one of "user pay". That has been the reality of the present transport policy. The second is because the minister has recognized that the policies which have been in place affecting a great many of these regions have been inappropriate and must be changed.
I suppose the minister was bound to get the message eventually. Certainly it was delivered to him from a number of different quarters. Almost a year ago the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) tabled a report in which he analyzed various sectors within his jurisdiction. With respect to transportation in Prince Edward Island he said in a document tabled before the standing committee last spring:
The report stated that the problems involved in transporting commodities using existing facilities are expected to be extreme by 1977.
That opinion was fortified by further comments made by provincial ministers in the legislature of Prince Edward Island during the spring session of a year ago.
When I asked the minister on March 26 of last year what steps were being taken to head off this impending crisis, he replied, in the way he so often does:
We always try to analyze traffic trends and look ahead to the steps to be taken to accomodate them, and that is what we are doing.
That kind of bland assurance does not convince us that the minister recognized the seriousness of the situation. It did not take too long for the provincial governments of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick to come back with a much sharper review and to remind the minister, if there is any danger of his forgetting, that there were serious problems respecting transportation policy in the region and that there seemed to be no awareness of this on his part, or on the part of the federal government generally.
At the twenty-second meeting of the Council of Maritime Premiers, which took place shortly after that in Charlottetown, the maritime premiers went on record as saying, first of all, that they would request an early meeting with the federal Minister of Transport. The premiers reaffirmed their position that transportation systems should be used by governments as positive tools for the attainment of national and regional objectives. But they stated that, despite the federal government's agreement with their position, there was an alarming lack of hard evidence that transportation is in fact being used
National Transportation Act
as a positive development tool. Indeed, they said there were examples of just the opposite. They went on to say:
The premiers expressed concern that the federal government is increasing cost recovery within some transportation systems without considering the effects of this on the over-all economy.
Finally the Minister of Transport in his generosity agreed to meet last summer with the maritime premiers to consider their particular plight. I would like very much to have the tapes of that particular meeting because I understand that it was a very stormy and long affair. However, at that point at least, it did not provide any evidence of change on the part of the Minister of Transport with respect to his various policies.
It took considerably more time before the minister finally responded. The response, as hon. members know, came just a few days ago at the meeting which took place in Charlottetown, where he met with the three provincial premiers and the minister of transport for Newfoundland. I am going to say something about the results of that meeting in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I merely rehearse these facts to indicate what a dreadfully long time it took, and what a difficult task it was, to convince this government that it indeed had some responsibility with respect to the regional impact of national transportation policies.
The danger I see in general terms in the position that the minister has had advanced on his behalf by the Minister of Justice, and indeed by the nature of agreements that seem to have been arrived at, is that in some way the minister is prepared to rationalize the Canadian transportation system as some kind of cost accounting method of bringing down certain expenditures within the Department of Transport, and in very real terms will lock in the status quo.
The tip of the hat that the minister has now given in the context of his meeting with the Atlantic premiers recognizes that the factor of regional, economic and social need will play a part. But beyond that general statement, which is stated quite often in the speech that was made on Tuesday, there is no real definition regarding what major change of policy will take place. Indeed we were told as a result of that meeting that there will be specific amendments made to the transportation act, which in itself is an amendment before the House; but so far the minister has not seen fit to present these amendments. He was not here to introduce his bill, and he has not yet said what form these amendments will take. We are merely told that some consultations are going on with Atlantic governments and that at some point after second reading, presumably in committee, the minister will bring forth some amendments to this bill.
I think that that kind of general but non-commital indication is insufficient to guarantee to the regions of this country that the government has satisfactorily learned of the disadvantage and disparity that it has created through the operation of this transportation policy over the last decade. Surely until we get some firm indication of the exact details of these transportation amendments, it would be a foolish thing for any member, from the government or from the opposition, to give his blank cheque for the speedy passage of this legislation.

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
Much of our attention in the context of this debate focuses quite naturally on the railroad. It was, after all, the building of the railroad itself which, in a sense, drew together the fragments of this country into one nation. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned a little earlier, even portions of that have not yet been completed. We are seeing the sorry spectacle in some instances of railroads not being completed and rail lines being abandoned.
Those of us from Atlantic Canada, particularly from the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, are less than enthusiastic about the way in which the Canadian National Railways have defaulted in their responsibility to contribute to the economic well-being of these two provinces. Surely the basis for British Columbia and the maritime provinces joining Confederation was that of establishing some firm rail connections to link the country together. Indeed the very history of Prince Edward Island's entrance into Confederation was the sorry spectacle of a railroad that wandered everywhere but in the right direction. Having exhausted the financial capacity of the territory, as it was then, it was forced through bankruptcy to enter Confederation.
The railroad, like fiscal arrangements, is mentioned in the British North America Act, a sign of its importance in the eyes of maritime governments. With respect to the particular history concerning freight rates, which has been a continuing burden for the Atlantic provinces, it is important for members to have recalled to them briefly how we have arrived at the situation where today rail transportation has put an enormous burden on the backs of those people in Atlantic Canada.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act, which was passed by parliament in the early months of 1927, was a direct result of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims, very often referred to as the Duncan commission. This commission was appointed in 1926. It attempted to study what had happened with respect to freight costs, particularly between the time 1912 to 1925. It discovered in fact that, using statistics supplied by the railways, between 1912 and 1925 there was a 92 per cent increase in rates, while elsewhere in Canada they had increased in the same period by only 55 per cent. It would seem that this royal commission was able to uncover the very great burden that was disproportionately placed during that period on the people of Atlantic Canada. I quote two brief sections that appear on page 21 of the report of that royal commission:
The lower level of rates that prevailed on the Intercolonial Railway system prior to 1912 is, in our view, rightly to be interpreted as the fulfilment by successive governments of the policy and pledges that surrounded the railway from its inception.
There was a policy, particularly when the railroad was very largely controlled in the region, to use transportation as a development tool, so that during that period local industry and other opportunities could be developed to their full.

Then the Duncan commission went on to state:
On the broader question, however, of the incidence of the existing rales as a whole upon industry and employment in the Maritimcs, we have come very definitely to the conclusion that the rate structure as it has been altered since 1912 has placed upon the trade and commerce of the Maritime Provinces (a) a burden which, as we have read the pronouncements and obligations undertaken at Confederation, it was never intended it should bear, and (b) a burden which is, in fact, responsible in very considerable measure for depressing abnormally in the Maritimcs today business and enterprise which had originated and developed before 1912 on the basis and faith of the rate structure as it then stood.
I think that, therefore, this kind of disproportionate increase is to recognize one of the sad facts that has been all too frequent since Confederation. Transportation, rather than being used as a tool of development, even though that was its basic concept at the time of Confederation, has been used to the disadvantage of the region, but perhaps nowhere more deliberately or more frequently has this occurred than since the enunciation of the National Transportation Act about a decade ago.
I should like to quote from a question of my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), on July 12, 1975, as reported at page 7813 of Hansard. He was comparing here the situation in terms of rate increases on the St. Lawrence Seaway as against rail rates in Atlantic Canada. He asked:
How many times has the government raised rates on the St. Lawrence Seaway system since 1959?
The answer was:
The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advised as follows: I. There have been no increases in the Montreal-Lakc Ontario section of the seaway. Tolls on the Welland canal were suspended in 1962. A lockage fee, phased in over five years, was introduced on this canal in 1967.
The second question was:
How many times were rail rates from Atlantic Canada inland raised since 1959?
The answer was:
The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 2. During the period January I, 1959 to June 11, 1975 inclusive, rail rates from Atlantic Canada inland were raised as follows; under categories indicated: (a) normal class and commodity rates, eight times, (b) Truck and water competitive rates eleven times, (c) Agreed charges, six times.
Since that question was tabled a little over a year and a half ago there have been at least four more freight increases. The sad fact is that there has been an acceleration in increases, particularly since the late 1960's. Under the Maritime Freight Rate Act, which was in existence prior to that time, there was a ceiling with respect to these increases, but the exorbitant and unwarranted increases that have occurred since the late 1960's have increasingly placed Atlantic Canada at a competitive disadvantage. It is for that reason, if for no other, that there is adequate need for us to have a revision, not only of the National Transportation Act, which is certainly long overdue, but of the policies and programs that will go with it.
I think it is obvious that the outcry of the Maritime premiers last year, and the comments of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), give an indica-

March 3, 1977
tion of the general anxiety and the general awareness that there is need of concrete action on the part of the minister, the department and the government.
What I am concerned about is that the minister act on the verbal commitments that were given to the maritime premiers and to the Newfoundland minister of transport. There are some specifics. Certainly the situation in Prince Edward Island with respect to commodity transport is becoming extremely serious. Not only I but my colleagues on the other side of the House have tried to bring this to the attention of both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with respect to the transportation of our basic commodity, that is, potatoes. But there seems to be a very indolent or half-hearted attitude concerning the carriers that will be used to move these potatoes to market.
There has been little or no recognition of the fact that we have seen a very rapid decline both in number and in quality of the reefers that have been used to move potatoes to market. Less than a decade ago we had well in excess of 4,000 of these cars; four or five years ago we were down to 2,500. It was originally expected that we might be down to about 1,500 this year, but the figure is much closer to 1,000.
As the minister would know if he contacted authorities in the potato industry in P.E.I. and New Brunswick, there are reports of increasing shortages this season. There are difficulties in organizing shipments of potatoes either to port or to export markets or to central Canadian markets, and yet the minister tells us that studies are going on, that there has not yet been a decision as to whether or not the new intermodal use, the use of trailers that will be driven to central points and loaded by piggyback on the train and taken to central Canadian markets, will replace the present use of rail cars. Yet I have not met one single individual, either in the potato industry or working with CNR, who believes to any degree that for many years to come we will not need a substantial number of rail cars to move well over two-thirds or three-quarters of our crop to market.
For a whole variety of reasons, both in terms of terminal points and in terms of having sufficient carriers available at reasonable cost, and in terms of organizing shipments that can get to market in this fashion, it will not be possible for five, ten, or 15 years to move more than a small percentage, perhaps no more than 15 per cent or 20 per cent at maximum by the intermodal system. In the foreseeable future we will depend on the railroad to move potatoes to the market. Yet the minister is reluctant even to place an order for 500, 700, or 800 reefer cars to tide us over this serious sitution. He said that more study must go on, more consultation. This week his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, told us that he is not sure the producers will actually use these cars. He is certainly not basing that on any direct conversation he has had with anyone in the potato industry. Quite likely he is basing it on some reports from the CNR and on some cars that stood idle early in the season when everything was moving directly by ship to European markets.
National Transportation Act
It is about time the minister got together with some of his colleagues. It is about time he took action, or the kind of extreme situation that was forecast by his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, a year ago will come to fruition. It will not make me or any other member of the House happy to be able to say, "We told you so". That will not help the poor potato grower who will be stuck with a product which he will in no way be able to get to market. It is obvious that a decision will have to be taken with respect to this commodity.
The only question is how soon the minister will move, and whether he will move soon enough to head off a crisis which could well arise. The minister has been willing in the past to order some thousands of grain cars to service a market which he knows exists and requires this service primarily in western Canada. It is unexplainable to the people in my area why that same kind of response cannot occur with respect to the situation in P.E.I. and New Brunswick. I understand it could well be important because of a different delivery system for some of the horticultural producers in western Canada.
There are other questions. I do not want to spend all my time on this issue even though it is of basic concern to me as a representative from the potato growing area. I hope that the minister and his officials will take this additional plea very seriously.
I do want to deal, however, with the more general issue with respect to the minister's commitment about taking regional needs, objectives, and ends much more seriously. It seems to me there are a number of unanswered questions, questions which I think must be looked at very squarely. When the minister or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, said that basic consideration will be given or, to be more accurate, when he said that the policy basically implies that whenever national or regional, economic or social ends do not justify a transportation subsidy then the user of the facility or service should pay, what did he mean by national or regional, economic or social ends? There have been no indications since the meeting which the minister had with the Atlantic premiers back in the early part of February that he has a definite concept in mind of what kind of agreements he wanted to reach. What criteria will exist, so that everyone will know that this policy will be administered according to those particular ends and objectives?
Perhaps more important than the criteria-though certainly the criteria are a fundamental consideration-the second question is, who will make the determination? We are told that there is going to be much more consultation and co-operation. I am sure there are many people with a direct interest in the transportation industry who will be delighted to hear that the minister has discovered that transportation is something about which there has to be very close consultation and co-operation. But with whom will there be this consultation and co-operation? I suppose it will be with the provincial governments, with agencies, Crown corporations and others involved in the trans-

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
portation field, but does it also mean other federal departments? Will it also be with respect to the development of employment opportunities under the Department of Manpower and Immigration, or with respect to commitments to develop new industry under DREE, or a change in tariff policy under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or with respect to the improvement or expansion of agriculture so that these will be factors bearing on the situation concerning regional, economic or social ends? We are not told. We have not heard. The minister has remained silent, both inside and outside this House.
We have a press release which the minister kindly circulated, but that gives little information or clarity to the responsibilities the minister or his department will exercise in this regard. Perhaps more important even than the question of criteria or who makes the determination is the basic dollar and cents question as to what funds we are talking about. Indeed it is in the area of funding that I am beginning to wonder whether the minister has really made any commitment at all because at one point in his release, which is also carried in the press communique from the twenty-fifth session of the Council of Maritime Premiers, the minister says, and I quote:
Mr. Lang indicated his acceptance of the general principle that the federal government would re-allocate funds, resulting from a reduction in subsidy payments, to other essential priority transportation projects and programs in the region.
What a beautiful phrase, but how little it tells us of what funds, and to what extent these funds will be used to make transportation a positive tool for development in the regions of economic and social disparity in this country. Without some clear commitment as to the amount of funds we are talking about, more than vague terms such as re-allocation and re-orientation, we have very little to make us believe that there will be any substantial improvement or closing of the gap with respect to disastrous transportation policies and costs which have been in effect over the past decade.
Then, I suppose, most of all we have to be clear as to how this transportation policy with respect to regional objectives and ends is going to be administered and how it is going to be implemented. There are a whole series of questions which I would love to have the time to put on the record arising out of one report which was produced a little less than a year ago by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. They made a number of pungent observations, and raised a number of questions which surely need to be answered in the context of the agreement the minister appears to have arrived at with the four Atlantic governments.
I am going to quote two or three questions. The report notes on page 9 that rail freight traffic originating in the Atlantic provinces is in decline. What are the longer term implications for the region of this decline? Are there any viable methods by which the existing rail network could be more vigorously used to assist the region, or is it not worth the effort and the expense?
With respect to the over-all freight rate increase for rail of 85 per cent to 90 per cent last year, how serious is this for an

Atlantic producer competing in the Ontario market? Were the various rate increases spread out fairly evenly across the country, or did they favour certain regions and industries more than others? What would be the effect of giving the provinces more jurisdiction over rates within their borders?
As I say, those connected with transportation within the region have a number of basic questions which need to be answered, but it seems to me that perhaps the most fundamental question of all is the question which has not yet been answered by the minister either in his press communique or, 1 doubt, in his meeting with the Atlantic premiers, or in any other place of which 1 am aware, and that question is, how does he view the long-term development of this country?
Does the minister believe that in administering the proposed transportation legislation he has some duty and some responsibility to play an activist role with respect to the chronic economic and social disparity which has existed in certain regions of the country for too long? Does he believe, when he looks at the income situation in certain communities in areas in parts of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Prince Edward Island, or in eastern Quebec, which reflect an income of half the level of the national average of this country, that transportation is involved in that question? When he looks at the recent figures indicating that half the people who are unemployed come from east of the St. Lawrence River-roughly half a million people-does he believe that transportation is critically involved in solving that unacceptable human tragedy? What are the over-all goals of a new transportation act? That is perhaps where we should end this little talk this evening in looking at the National Transportation Act itself.
When one looks at the goals and the objectives set out in this bill, it is no wonder that the four governments of the Atlantic provinces unanimously agreed that, right at the outset, both in terms of the preamble and the objectives of this bill, there is not a clear recognition that transportation should be used as a tool for the economic and social health of the regions of this country. It is true that in one clause we read:
It is hereby declared that the objective of the transportation policy for Canada is to achieve a transportation system that
(a)	is efficient,
(b)	is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of national and
regional social and economic objectives . ..
I understand that by changing that and a couple of other clauses, there may be some further recognition of responsibility, but from my point of view, and perhaps from the point of view of very many people, unless the minister can clearly state at the outset that this bill is seen in the context of transportation as serving the reduction of regional disparities and the elimination of long-standing transportation inequities which exist in this country, we will not feel we have benefited from the amendments the minister placed before us this week. Quite frankly, for a Minister of Transport not to realize that, is surely to miss the essential point of this country. Surely there are two things which stand out for someone who looks at this just for a moment. I think we are the second largest country in the world and yet we have a population which is so small,
March 3, 1977

relatively speaking. But it is so strung out that our great problem on a day-to-day basis is remaining viable as a country.
There has been a tremendous amount of attention paid to the situation vis-a-vis the future of Quebec and its relationship to the rest of the country, but surely germane to that situation and to all the provinces and regions of the country is the fact that unless something as basic as transportation works day by day in a whole series of ways to relieve the difficulties and the disadvantages which exist for a person who is a consumer in Charlottetown or a potato grower in part of my riding, it is not serving the nation well as a whole. Frankly, 1 have been disturbed that the Minister of Transport has taken so long even to begin to recognize that situation. Even in response to the questions that 1 and others have raised with him about the concept of user-pay, he having recognized it was no longer valid, and whether he would state clearly and unequivocally that from this time forth transportation policies would be used as a positive tool for development and, if you like, national equalization, as a positive tool to open up communities that have existed far too long at the end of transportation links that have done them a disservice-and whether this will be overcome with avengeance-that is not what I hear from the Minister of Transport. I hear that if it is appropriate, and if the objective is warranted, there will be relocation and reorientation.
At another point we are told that the minister and the maritime premiers agreed that, where economic development objectives required it, these objectives would take precedence over the commercial viabilities of the services concerned, and that later on they agreed on the merits of applying the subsidy only to selected commodities and only to shippers of regionally produced commodities. Even there, there is no recognition of the inbound situation. There was some grudging admission that perhaps we should do something for producers in places like the Atlantic region with respect to central Canadian markets. That is only half the equation; there is still the importing of raw materials and equipment in order to begin to be productive and competitive with the rest of the country.
To date we have heard no explanations, no assurances, no call to establish a transportation policy that is really going to reduce and redress regional imbalances and inequities. Without that assurance we do not have a real transportation policy, but a hollow mockery of one.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in engaging in this debate on major transportation policy I should like to discuss a number of issues of particular interest to me, and I would gather them under five separate headings.
The First is one which I know other members from urban areas have already spoken about. It relates to the pressing need for federal aid to urban transit.
National Transportation Act
The second issue 1 should like to speak about, perhaps a little more philosophically, and to put forward ideas on that 1 think are important, relates to inter-urban transport.
The third matter I should like to touch upon is what 1 consider a very important subject relating to the safety factor at open level crossings. 1 refer more specifically to major urban areas where this is a continuing and serious problem.
The fourth matter I should like to address myself to is the construction of grade separations, which has some direct reference to the earlier topic, but still is a topic on its own because of the vast sums of money that will ultimately be needed.
The last topic is the role of the Canadian Transport Commission in some of the areas of its responsibility, particularly its role as I see it as a responsible public forum in the service of the people of Canada.
On the matter of aid to urban transit, I think this is indeed a most important area in which governments should and must become involved, including the federal government. In coming to this general conclusion I think one only needs to pose the question of what kinds of areas should government be involved in, in the First place, and specifically the federal government. It seems to me that the answer is government at the federal level should be involved where there is a need felt by a large number of citizens, where there are social injustices, of one kind or another, and the demand, for whatever reason, is there.
In cities like Montreal and Toronto we have some 20 per cent of the Canadian population. I do not have exact figures but I would guess that probably 40 per cent of the population in those two cities is moving about every day from home to job and back-not in inter-urban transportation, not flying from city to city or travelling by train from city to city, but getting up in the morning and going to work, not travelling for pleasure or enjoyment but simply to earn a living and in effect help keep the economy ticking. That seems to me to suggest a need for government at the federal level to be extremely interested.
There are other goals that can be accomplished in the area of urban transit such as energy conservation, a goal that 1 think is very much before Canadians at this time.
Then there is the extreme cost of expressways. In other words, if we do not have adequate urban transit it means indirectly that we must continue to promote the use of the automobile from home to work and back. We have come to the realization that the means of providing channels for these automobiles to move on, expressways and major roads, is a major expenditure in terms of dollars, of environmental pollution, and of parking. A failure to recognize the need for urban transit is an admission that we accept the other option, which is to continue to promote the use of the automobile for this purpose.
If there is any doubt about the relationship of federal aid to urban transit for the ordinary urban taxpayer, I suggest it is not entirely different to the kind of expenditures that the federal government still makes for medicare, family allowances, and old age pensions, where the benefit can be felt in

March 3, 1977
National Transportation Act
the pocketbook of the individual taxpayer who lives in the urban community. His mode of urban transit is basic to his daily life. All levels of government must be involved, just as they are in medicare. Municipal governments must be involved in ensuring there are adequate hospitals in the area, while provincial and federal governments provide funding. I suggest no level of government can stand aside in this day and age from the needs of urban transit.
I should like to feel that it was in direct recognition of this need-in fact, specifically in recognition of this need-that this government, or that in office during the twenty-ninth parliament, decided in its wisdom during the last election campaign to recognize the need to make a commitment to the Canadian people that there would be substantial capital assistance to municipalities to assist them to acquire the much-needed new equipment to improve urban transit. 1 believe the commitment was somewhere in the area of $300 million. It is important to recognize that approximately one-third of this, $100 million, has already been put into this project and will start working its way into the system this spring. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. There must be recognition of the remainder of the commitment. I am pleased to note that on more than one occasion in the House during this past week in the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that a decision on this has not been finalized. The cabinet is still considering the matter. I plead with it to look at this area of need, affecting ordinary citizens in the streets of our towns and cities, as it looks at other social services such as medicare, old age assistance, family allowances, etc., services which are basic to people's everyday lives.
It is important to discourage the use of vehicles which transport only one or two people to work, and to encourage the use of vehicles which will transport many people efficiently, save energy, and pollute the environment less. People will use rapid transit increasingly if it meets their needs, is clean, and efficient. They will not use it if it is inconvenient, for example if they must stand in the cold a long time waiting for a bus. Then they will say no, they will use their automobiles. The government can discourage the use of the automobile by providing services which will persuade people to switch to public transport.
Before leaving this topic I should like to refer to the reaction of certain municipal authorities to the announcement that the government's commitment in this area will possibly be curtailed this year. I note particularly the reaction of authorities in metropolitan Toronto. It disturbs me immensely to note that certain officials of metropolitan Toronto have indicated in the last ten days or two weeks that they are about to renege on their commitment to provide light, rapid transit for the borough of Scarborough. They do not help me in the case I am trying to make, that the federal government should contribute substantially to urban transit. It is unfortunate that municipal governments themselves cannot fix their policies, stay with them and stop equivocating. All the same I implore our federal authorities to remember their commitment. At the same time I

plead with elected municipal officials to carry out their plans for providing the urban transit system our people demand.
It has been said that we cannot afford new urban transit systems, that they are a luxury at this time. I say that the $200 million-odd which was committed to this area was not to be spent on a luxury. It was to fill a real need. In view of the large budgets of various departments and large loans made to various Crown corporations, and in view of the amounts provided in estimates for various government services, I suggest that we could meet needs in transportation by bringing about a small shift in the ordering of priorities. Surely in a budget of over $40 billion it should not be difficult to rearrange some of our priorities and keep a basic commitment made during the 1974 election campaign, for that would give the ordinary taxpayer the feeling that the federal governement is concerned about those things which affect most of us day in, day out.
I come now to inter-urban transit. It is time we developed an over-all strategy in this country for inter-urban transit. At present we have three basic modes of transportation, air, rail, and road. One way or another, we subsidize those three modes. We subsidize extensively the air and rail services, and subsidize indirectly bus services. We do not subsidize bus services directly, but subsidize the roads on which they run. I suggest that we need some sort of transport strategy in this area, and I put forward once more recommendations I made in other forums. I suggest that we should provide buses which would give clean, efficient, and fast service for trips up to 200 miles. We should set up appropriate bus depots to meet needs, so that people would be encouraged to use the bus for trips of up to 200 miles. In southwestern and eastern Ontario such bus trips would cover trips to many of our major centres. Unfortunately in Scarborough, an area with a population of 400,000, we do not even have a bus terminal. There is something irrational about that. We spend millions on new airports, but there is not even one bus terminal to serve a community of 400,000.
For trips between 200 and 500 miles we should use rail service. We should provide fast, efficient, and economical rail service for trips of up to 500 miles. We should encourage Canadians to use aircraft only for trips greater than 500 miles. We need a strategy which will take into account air, rail, and bus services and encourage the maximum possible use of each mode instead of encouraging competition between them in any given transport corridor.
I shall now deal with the safety factor at level crossings. This subject is of concern to many members representing urban areas where the exposure factor is high. By the exposure factor I mean the factor arrived at by multiplying the number of trains with the number of automobiles and other vehicles crossing any given point. Personally I am not satisfied that the Canadian Transport Commission has been tough enough in this area, and not satisfied that it has acted sufficiently in the public interest. There has not been enough insistence on meeting safety requirements at level crossings where there is a high exposure factor. I have had some personal experience in this matter, for in Scarborough, a municipality of 400,000,
March 3, 1977

there are 35 level crossings. It has taken me a whole year to convince the commission that a new examination of each of those level crossings is needed to determine if the current safety factors are adequate.
I am concerned, because there seems to be an inclination on the part of the regulatory body when considering these crossings to be very conscious of the needs of the railways. If a train is normally permitted to travel at 90 miles an hour through an urban area, there seems to be an extreme reluctance to suggest that the speed limit be reduced to 50 or 60 miles an hour where there are a number of dangerous level crossings. There does not seem to be the same degree of concern over the expressed concern of individual citizens. What 1 am attempting to say is that the safety factor for level crossings is too frequently looked upon by the regulatory body as something that is there to ensure satisfaction on the part of the railway.
I have one interesting and recent example. Signal lights were installed at an intersection in my borough. 1 discovered that the signal lights had not been installed primarily because of a demand by the people. They were installed because of a demand by the railway so that its trains could move through that intersection without them being obligated to post a flagman and conduct the train through.
It is this whole area where I feel the concerns of the public need to receive more attention on the part of the regulatory body than now is the case. I think the regulatory body must lay down its regulations once it has examined each and every situation, and insist that the railways as well as the public carry out those regulations and follow them.
Grade separations are becoming an increasingly difficult subject because of the increasing expense of each grade separation. It has been estimated in my own community that to separate 16 of the most urgent crossings at the present time would cost $69 million, of which the federal government would make by far the largest contribution.
All I ask at this time is that the minister, in bringing this bill forward, do nothing to damage in any way or otherwise affect the relocation fund that is currently available and from which money can be drawn when approved applications come forward from the municipalities and are approved by the Canadian Transport Commission as warranting a grade separation. I feel this particular fund is working. I am most concerned that nothing be done in the course of implementing this bill to affect in any way the provision of those kinds of finances.
I realize that all grade separations cannot be done at once. It is a slow and methodical process. However, with increasing attention to the safety factor at level crossings, and an increasing push to move all of these grade seperations as they come forward and finance them at the federal-provincial level, we can eventually accomplish them all.
My real concern is if this fund were to disappear or in any
way be transferred to another level of government to operate,
we would be in serious trouble. I plead with the minister to
National Transportation Act
ensure that, in this legislation at least, nothing will be done to give rise to any change in that particular type of funding.
Lastly, I want to speak of the role of the Canadian Transport Commission in those areas with which I am familiar. They are very limited, but they come from my own personal involvement. I have mentioned one, the matter of adequacy of safety standards.
There is another one to which I have addressed a private member's bill. It has received considerable support in this House and I trust it will continue to receive the support of the government as it goes through committee. I refer to the matter of requiring the railways to come before the CTC to have their plans for extension of marshalling yards or other facilities approved by the CTC before proceeding. This is an area where there is inadequate consideration of the concerns of the public.
I mentioned the need for the ordinary property owners in most urban areas across this country to go to their municipality when they wish to put up the lightest type of building in their own back yard. However, because they possess a right of way, the railways are not required to go to anybody when they wish to construct on that right of way, no matter what type of facility they want to construct. There is a requirement that they do this for new branch lines.
I have suggested in my private member's bill and I urge the government to take an increasing interest in policy as a result of this bill, that when the railways have construction plans they should insist that they bring them before a public body, giving the neighbours in that particular community an opportunity to present themselves and speak in support of or against a particular proposal.
I urge the minister, in redirecting some of the responsibilities of the Canadian Transport Commission, to insist that it indeed become a body to serve the public and to be seen by the public as an instrument acting in their individual interest.
These are several remarks that I wish to address in connection with this particular bill. In some ways they are unrelated, but, in my view, all important. They all express the concern 1 have about the need of government to be active itself in transportation problems associated with people rather than with goods. I realize the problems in the area of goods, but this time I am addressing myself specifically to problems involving people.
I ask once again for further consideration of this commitment to aid for urban transit, bearing in mind that it is an area that is felt individually by each worker every day of his life as he goes back and forth to work. It is as important to him as having proper hospitalization, proper provision for his old age, proper assistance for other things over which he has no control.
I intend to support this bill. However, again I ask the minister to use his persuasive powers with his government colleagues on those matters to which I addressed myself tonight, as did my other colleagues, particularly those from the urban areas of Toronto and Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).
Adjournment Debate Mr. Friesen: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is ten o'clock, and 1 have recognized the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight a topic that has received much publicity of recent date. That is the matter of the internment of prisoners of conscience in the USSR. Specifically I want to raise the case of one Georgi Vins.
In August, 1975, when the Helsinki accord was signed, and especially when the third basket was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), along with the other leaders, I am sure most of us were filled with the hope that peace, stability, and specifically the recognition of human rights, would be upheld by the nations represented at the signing of the Helsinki accord. Moreover, human rights are guaranteed under article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.
But despite the signing of the Helsinki accord, prisoners of conscience in the USSR have spent time in Soviet prisons, they have spent time in labour camps, generally in Siberia, and further, as one of the most invidious forms of punishment ever devised, they have spent time in psychiatric institutions, hidden from the eyes of the world and hidden from international justice. The prisoner I want to mention today, Mr. Georgi Vins, is serving time for a crime no more serious than that of practising his religious faith. That is a crime in the USSR.
On November 14, 1976, I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 as follows:
That members of this House urge the Prime Minister to make representations to the government of the USSR that Georgi Vins be released from imprisonment and that the government of the Soviet Union allow him and all other religious believers within its borders to worship God freely according to their own consciences, as the Soviet Union is committed to do by the provisions of its constitution and by the provisions of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights which the Soviet Union has ratified.
That motion was denied unanimous consent. On the same day I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) whether he would make specific representations to the USSR on behalf of Mr. Vins, a Baptist pastor in the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
March 3, 1977
USSR who was arrested in March, 1974, for professing his faith and sentenced on June 28, 1975, to five years' imprisonment, plus an additional five years in exile, plus confiscation of property, a penalty which directly affects his family and, specifically, his five children. His offence? Teaching the Bible to those under the age of 18 and leading what was termed an unorganized religious group. He was tried under section 209 of the criminal code of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
The World Council of Churches has written to the USSR, saying in part:
We have reason to believe, on the basis of information received, that the charges against Mr. Vins are made primarily because of his religious convictions and activities.
The Nobel prizewinner, Andrei Sakharov, wrote:
The arrests, breaking-up of prayer meetings, fines, discrimination in school and at work, and, as the height of inhumanity, the taking away of children from their parents all this is the lot of the Baptist and to one degree or another of many other religious groups who arc inconvenient to the authorities.
What is to happen? World opinion today cannot allow itself to lessen its moral support for these prisoners of conscience. Western news media must focus attention on the struggle for human rights in the USSR, and we, as parliamentarians, must stand up and say that what is happening in the Soviet Union is wrong. When the Prime Minister went to see President Carter I was tremendously pleased with the direct approach the President had taken. Yet it was evident from the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that direct representations on behalf of Georgi Vins have not been made.
The Prime Minister said this week that we intend to follow the diplomatic route rather than the direct route. I have not had time to explain the case in detail, but I want to say that what we as Canadians have done is not enough. What the Prime Minister has done is not enough. What we as parliamentarians have done is not enough.
The Helsinki accord is a farce in the USSR. It has been a total and absolute abdication of what the USSR authorities signed. The families of these men and women, and in many , many cases their blood, cry out for justice. I urge, I plead, that the Prime Minister, his officials, and for that matter all parliamentarians, stand up and voice the concern of a concerned world that human rights are being severely violated in the USSR, and that international world opinion demands a radical change of attitude and justice for these many people who are victims of a very, very cruel regime.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, on November 4, 1976, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) raised, and this with good reason, the problem of human rights in Russia. He is convinced, as everybody in the House is, that that problem is very important, and we are all very much concerned about it.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Provencher could not attend this afternoon's sitting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) expressed his

March 3, 1977
opinion and discussed the policy of the government on that most important subject. Following many questions, both from opposition and from government members, the minister made important statements on the subject. I suggest that the hon. member read carefully the minutes which will be issued after that sitting, where he will certainly find detailed answers to the question he asked on November 4 and which is raised again tonight.
As I only have three minutes to speak, I shall simply say, to sum up the discussions we had this afternoon, that the Canadian government has a deep and constant commitment to find solutions to this problem of human rights. As a matter of fact, this subject has been discussed on a general basis during the minister's visit in Moscow last October, but no particular case has been mentioned except for certain cases concerning the reuniting of families. Towards the end of this year, during the Belgrade conference, the 35 countries which signed the Helsinki agreement will make a survey; they will re-examine all the aspects of this important problem and evaluate the performance of each country as far as this Helsinki agreement is concerned. At that time Canada will be able to avail itself of the opportunity to pursue its numerous representations to these countries, particularly those which would have failed to honour their commitments.
\ English]


MANPOWER-GRANTS TO CONSTITUENCIES IN RESPECT OF MANPOWER MOBILITY
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for detaining the House at such a late hour. However, I am exercising an ancient and important right on behalf of a citizen who, I am sure the House will agree, has fallen into difficulty through no fault of his own.
I wish to compliment the minister and his department for taking action. After 1 gave his office notice of the question, the minister was good enough to have one of his officials give my constituent, Mr. Carlton Champion, landed immigrant status after almost six years in this country, four X-ray examinations, all of which were sent by registered mail to the department, and two other applications.
Unhappily, the department lost my constituent's file. The department alleges that my constituent moved too often. In fact he moved from the United States to Toronto, and from Toronto to Goose Bay, Labrador, where he was employed by one of the agencies of the government of Canada. His neighbour on one side was an immigration officer and so was his neighbour across the street, friends and acquaintances of his. He was registered with Manpower at Goose Bay and was registered with the immigration service at Goose Bay, so there was no question of any hiding. My constituent also underwent a security check with the government of Canada which included fingerprinting, so any question that he was avoiding publicizing where he was, is totally inaccurate. He was an employee of this government and of the Public Service of Canada.
Adjournment Debate
In any event, the files were lost. My constituent came to this country in August of 1971, but only last week was a ministerial permit issued authorizing him to be in Canada, despite the fact that I have in front of me a letter from the Department of Manpower and Immigration dated August 12, 1971, Toronto, which reads:
Wc have received an application for permanent admission to Canada from Mr. Carlton Champion. There is no objection on our pari to the above named accepting employment, pending compliance with immigration requirements.
Yours very truly.
It was signed for the district administrator of Canada Immigration Centre. The problem is that because his status was only settled last week, my constituent was ineligible for a manpower mobility payment. His wife and four children are in severely destitute circumstances. Here I want to pay another compliment to the department, the immigration people m Saint-John, New-Brunswick, who were so upset at the way this case has been handled that they have seen to it that my constituent has work. He has now returned to work for one of the government agencies. Unhappily, it is only for six weeks. But my constituent, who was at Goose Bay, Labrador, when the Goose Bay facility was phased out, had to move to Saint John, New Brunswick. He was told that he would be eligible for manpower mobility funding, and when it was discovered that his status, through no fault of his, had not been cleared up and he was still a stateless person until last week, he was denied manpower mobility funding.
I am exercising on his part his privilege, one 1 am glad to undertake, because 1 am sure that a sensitive and sympathetic department would wish, as I do, to go the second mile in unravelling this complicated and quite heartrending case. The department has solved the status issue about five years too late because my constituent will now have to wait three years, as 1 understand it, before claiming his right to citizenship, instead of being a citizen now, as he would have been if the department has not lost his file. He also, unhappily, has his furniture in storage. It is about to be re-possessed. I have gone to the trouble of sending a telegram asking the movers to hold up on selling the furniture until a sensitive, compassionate department can do what it should do on behalf of Carlton Champion and see to it that the manpower mobility payment is paid.
[Translation)


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Carl Champion was refused a manpower mobility grant because at the time he submitted his application, the Saint John, N.B., CMC considered that he was not a landed immigrant and, therefore, did not meet the requirements of the manpower mobility program regulations. On the other hand, the department officials who reviewed his case felt that the CMC had misinterpreted the manpower mobility program regulations in connection with Mr. Champion's immigration status. Therefore, Mr. Champion's application for a grant will be reassessed to determine if he meets the other requirements for a mobility grant and, if so, a mobility grant will be authorized so that he may obtain all the benefits he is eligible for.

March 3, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Though Mr. Champion arrived in Canada in July 1971, a request for his entry, sponsored by his wife, was made on August 22, 1971. Before any of the formalities related to his request could be gone through, Mr. Champion moved several times without leaving any trace of his whereabouts or advising immigration authorities of his change of address. Only in January 1976 did he again get in touch with the immigration authorities with regard to his landed immigrant status. He was then advised that, to meet the requirements of the department, he and his dependents would have to get a medical. He took his medical on April 5, 1976, but his dependents did not until September 21, 1976.
The civil servants advised me that Mr. Carlton Champion and his dependents were granted landed immigrant status on February 25, 1977. If Mr. Champion wants a settlement grant, he must go to his local immigration centre and his request will be studied in the light of current rules. In view of the circumstances I have just described, in all sincerity I feel the department acted in good faith with Mr. Champion.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-LOG HOUSING PROGRAM FOR NORTHERN CANADA
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to raise once again a matter which is of great importance. I have mentioned this matter in this House many times. I have raised it in public and in committee.
Generally speaking, I have found agreement with this idea.
It is not a new one. It is one I have been pursuing for sometime, and I have been trying to get some response from the government. I have been trying to get the government to take the initiative whereby a good housing program can be put into place in the Northwest Territories, especially in the Mackenzie district. I have been advocating a good log housing program under which people can build their own homes in the Mackenzie district using a local renewable resource, namely, logs, which are in abundance, especially along the Mackenzie and in the Liard area. I think this idea makes sense for the simple reason that a good log housing program would make use of a local, renewable, natural resource. It would provide badly needed jobs, and it would also provide housing for people in the Mackenzie district.
I have described the area at other times in this place as a disaster area, and that it is. I know this because I have travelled in the Mackenzie district. I have travelled in many parts of the Northwest Territories for many years. As hon. members know, I canvassed door to door in my campaign to become elected to the House of Commons.
I am raising this question again because I have not been able to get a positive response from the department. As most people know, bad housing creates social problems. Children do not do well in school, young people in the family may not be able to hold jobs, there are health problems, and there are

mental health problems, especially, in a very, very, cold climate. For some time I have been advocating that the territorial administration, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, initiate a good log housing program in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories. People there who already have good log houses know that they will last for 100 years or more. As a rule maintenance is minimal and, as the houses are generally well insulated, heating does not cost a lot. Not much training is needed for construction, and I think we already have enough people with the knowledge to establish a good program. The need is there the material is there, and the labour is there.
If the program were launched it could start by filling an immediate need of the legislature of the Northwest Territories. They have a table, they have chairs for the members to sit on, a mace, and recently a Speaker's chair was presented by the Parliament of Canada to the legislature of the Northwest Territories. But, Mr. Speaker, they do not have a building. I suggest a project could be launched through Canada Works, perhaps the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or some leftover funds from LIP programs, and a log building constructed to house the Speaker's chair, the table, chairs, and mace that the legislature already has. Maybe 50 or 100 years from now the people of the territories would want a different kind of building, but this would be a starting point for a log housing program.
I may be stepping out of line, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that some of the municipalities in the territories change their regulations that forbid a certain style of log construction The decision is up to them, but I would hope, once it was shown that a good log house worked and fitted in with the environment, that the regulations would be changed.
I should like to ask the department what the government is doing about such a program. I am sure this is not the first time they have heard about it and I will see to it that they hear more about it in the future. Is the government doing anything about such an idea?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, following the 1972 recommendations of the Northwest Territories Council task force on housing, all of the provincial type housing responsibilities were transferred by the department to the territorial government. In 1974 the N.W.T. Housing Corporation assumed these responsibilities.
The housing corporation has made the greatest possible use of the various housing programs provided by the National Housing Act. Due to the particular needs of the many low income residents of the territories, the public housing program, under sections 40 and 43 of the National Housing Act, have provided most of the family accommodation built to date.
Following Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's agreement to provide NHA loans for the capital costs and to share in the operating losses of any approved log houses included in the public housing program, the N.W.T. Housing Corporation established a log milling operation in Fort Resolu-

tion. Local labour and materials were utilized to produce uniform sized logs which would meet CMHC standards. To date 37 log houses have been completed and ten more are under construction in various communities in the Mackenzie River area. The per unit costs have ranged from S50,000 to $77,000.
Unfortunately a major problem has been encountered. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation standards for the public housing program require logs of a minimum diameter of ten inches. The supply of trees of a size which will produce milled logs of this size is so limited that the inclusion of log houses in the public housing programs will end when the ones presently under construction are completed.
Although it is not limited to log housing, the N.W.T. Housing Corporation's "Small Settlement Home Assistance Program" encourages residents of smaller communities to utilize local materials, normally logs, for the construction of their homes. Any sized logs can be used in this program. The program has been providing grants of up to $5,000 to cover the cost of manufactured components, such as doors, windows,
Adjournment Debate
roofing, etc., required to complete a basic structure built of local materials. The housing corporation intends to increase the grants to a maximum of $10,000, including $7,500 for materials and $2,500 for transportation. The number of grants provided by the program is expected to increase from 20 in 1976-77 to 30 in each of the following years.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's rural and remote housing program will be available for the first time in the Northwest Territories in 1977-78. The program's allowance for labour contributed by an applicant should encourage the use of logs for the basic house structure. Groups of residents in Fort Smith and in Fort Simpson have already applied for loans to construct log houses in those communities.
If only wood is used as fuel, any sized log can be used to build houses under this program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, March 4, 1977