1977-06-07

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 26 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9
80018-iy2
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, June 7, 1977


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the announcement by Canadian National that it intends to force inappropriate equipment on the maritime potato trade which will result in a significant loss of jobs in the agricultural sector of the region, in view of the fact that freight rates on potatoes shipped to the region's primary market in central Canada will rise 35 per cent in one year, costing Prince Edward Island producers alone an additional $1 million, and in view of the announcement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) of an Atlantic provinces transportation program which seriously downgrades federal support of rail freight traffic, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That officials of Canadian National be called before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to justify these actions; that the Minister of Transport immediately bring in interim subsidies to offset the potato freight rate increase; and that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) give urgent attention to the negative impact of the declining rail service and increased rates in the economies of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of energy but in his absence I will
direct it either to the acting minister, if there is one, or to the Acting Prime Minister. My question to the Acting Prime Minister relates to statements printed recently in the Toronto Star by Dr. David Brooks, who was recently a senior energy adviser on conservation matters to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and a man whom the minister responsible recently described as having served the department and Canadians extremely well. In his article Dr. Brooks stated that bureaucratic slow motion continues to stall development of fair and effective energy conservation programs. In light of that condemnation of the government's action on energy conservation by the man in Canada who is in the best position to know, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether the government accepts Dr. Brooks' criticisms and intends to adjust federal policies to meet the targets and the sense of urgency in energy matters which Dr. Brooks indicates?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I expect the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be in the House momentarily and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would get a more detailed and satisfactory answer if he put the question to the minister when he comes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to defer, but I might make the point that we expect ministers of the Crown to be in the House at 2 p.m. when the House meets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And in everybody's absence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Last Thursday, in an attempt to split hairs, the Prime Minister said that the letter sent by L'Agence de Presse Libre to the then solicitor general, at present Minister of Supply and Services, did not refer to the RCMP but rather spoke only of the police. It is worth noting that appended to the letter, the then solicitor general also received a telegram

June 7, 1977
Oral Questions
sent to the RCMP in Montreal specifically asking whether the RCMP was responsible for the break-in. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not this particular fact has been brought to the attention of the government by the Minister of Supply and Services, and whether or not, included in the statement to be made by the Solicitor General there will be an explanation as to why the then solicitor general did not investigate, when he in fact received the specific notice by virtue of the telegram, that the RCMP were directly involved in the raid?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: believe the hon. member is already aware that it is the intention of the Solicitor General to make a statement on this matter following the sentencing that is expected to take place this week or next, and therefore I will draw to the minister's attention the additional information that the hon. member requires and suggests that he includes it in the statement. In the meantime, it is not my intention to add any further comments on this question.


BREAK-IN AT JAMES, LEWIS AND SAMUEL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the Acting Prime Minister is discussing the matter with the Solicitor General-and maybe he will now answer the question-will he ask whether, included in the statement the Solicitor General is going to make in the House with respect to the activity of the RCMP in this particular break-in, will be a statement with respect to the break-in in 1971 into the offices of James, Lewis and Samuel, a publishing company, in which files were also stolen? Can we have an undertaking from the Acting Prime Minister that included in the statement by the Solicitor General on June 9 there will be a statement with respect to that incident as well?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be discussing the statement with the minister and I will ensure, as I am sure it is his intention, that he makes it as comprehensive as possible.


BREAK-IN AT L'AGENCE DE PRESSE LIBRE-AVAILABILITY OF FORMER MINISTER AT TIME STATEMENT IS MADE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. In view of the actions of the Minister of Supply and Services and the fact that he released a press statement even though a statement was to be made by the Solicitor General-he decided unilaterally to make a statement and leave the country-and in view of the fact that this situation appears to bear strong similarities to an occurrence some two years ago when the Minister of Supply and Services tried to blame his staff for not communicating information to him, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would get an undertaking that the Minister of Supply and Services will make a statement in the House and will be available for examination with respect to this very important

matter so that we can examine him as well as the Solicitor General at that time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is responsible for reporting to the House on these questions, and he will do so in the customary way.


ALLEGATION BY DR. BROOKS BUREAUCRATIC SLOW MOTION STALLS CONSERVATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is here, I would like to put to him a question relating to statements made in the Toronto Star by Dr. David Brooks, who is well known to the minister as an expert on energy conservation in the country. Dr. Brooks said that bureaucratic slow motion continues to stall development of fair and effective energy conservation programs for Canada. I wonder if the minister would tell the House very simply whether he accepts that fundamental criticism of Dr. Brooks and whether he intends to change government policy to reach the standards and the sense of urgency that Dr. Brooks' article communicates?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Dr. Brooks is a very distinguished scientist in the area of energy conservation. I believe he was reflecting the frustrations of those who have been part of a very small group, and a very effective group, which has not been able to move its particular concerns faster than all the other competing claims within a very large department.
I think it is also quite clear that the target which was set by the government in the energy strategy a year ago of reducing the increase in our energy consumption to less than 3.5 per cent-and this is perhaps the sense of frustration he feels- and down to 2 per cent, which I have interpreted as a zero rate of growth per capita by 1985, is a desirable objective which is yet to be fully substantiated as possible by the economists. I think Dr. Brooks would agree with me that it is important, before we adopt a target of that kind, that we are sure of all the implications and whether in fact it is attainable. My own view-and I have stated this before-is that we should be able to approach, if not achieve, a zero rate of growth per capita in energy consumption by 1985.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT COMMITMENTS ON CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister's own views are obviously irrelevant here because he has just admitted to the House of Commons that the frustration of Dr. Brooks is due to the fact that energy conservation has such a low place on the totem pole of priority in his department that Dr. Brooks had to quit.
June 7, 1977

I would like to ask the minister to become specific for a moment. In the 1976 energy conservation program a number of objectives were defined which Dr. Brooks has properly pointed out have not been acted upon. He lists the lack of monitoring or enforcement of provisions for automobile mileage standards. He points out that in 15 months there have been no appliance efficiency standards, and no labelling plans have been announced. He asks where the minister's proposed studies on energy efficiency for air and public transit have gone. The House of Commons would like to have answers to those specific questions, and it would like to know why in 15 months the minister has not moved on those specific priorities spelled out in his own policy.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite untrue to suggest that nothing is happening with respect to mileage standards. The government made it very clear that it has adopted a standard of roughly 24 miles per gallon by 1980. We have every reason to believe that that will be reached. The automobile manufacturing companies are co-operating. By 1985 that mileage standard on a fleet average will be about 33 miles to the gallon, representing in over-all terms quite an increased efficiency, almost double the efficiency we had a year ago. In other words, we will get twice as many miles per gallon of gas or we will use half as much gas to go the same distance. That policy is in place, so to suggest that the government has not acted on that is quite erroneous.
With respect to the question of labelling, that policy is also well on the way. The Leader of the Opposition might like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whose department is responsible for this aspect of the program.
Similarly, action has been taken with respect to insulation standards. That has been discussed. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to criticize the government if we produced a set of standards through the National Research Council which had not first been discussed fully and thoroughly with the provinces and gained their acceptance for them. That process has been going on and I think it will be possible to announce new standards within a week or two. Similarly, we have taken action in the area of home insulation in the maritimes. I think it is wrong of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest there is no sense of urgency and that this government has not taken action in the area of energy conservation.


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF HOME INSULATION PROGRAM AS MEANS OF CONSERVATION
Charles Joseph Clark: What the minister has suggested is that after waiting 15 months we should wait another week because they might have an announcement to make then. Regarding the home insulation program may I ask the minister if he has given consideration to phasing in an extension of that program outside of the two-and I emphasize two-provinces in Atlantic Canada where there is now a program in place? In particular is he following the suggestion
Oral Questions
of my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West, that priority should be given to phasing in that insulation program in high unemployment areas of the country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Leader of the Opposition has been out of the House a good deal recently. I realize he has had other things on his mind and has not been present for the question period. If he had been in the House over the last month he would realize that question has been put to me and I have answered it on at least three occasions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of those Canadians in high unemployment areas who might benefit from any phase-in program, could the minister bring himself to answer the question once again, concretely?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would read Hansard-concretely.


ALLEGED MEMORANDUM TO CABINET SUGGESTING
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, even if the hon. minister is in the House, he is really out of it. I have a supplementary question for the minister. Did members of the staff of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources prepare a memorandum which went to Cabinet and which argued that a sound energy conservation program could eliminate the need for a risky exploration for oil and gas on Canada's frontiers and which claimed that an efficiency oriented program could cut the growth of energy demand in half between now and the year 2000? Did such a memorandum go to Cabinet and is it not a fact that Cabinet rejected the suggestion?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that ministers are not in a position to discuss or comment upon documents that have come before Cabinet. I want to make the point that I would hope the people in my department would be putting such position papers together for the consideration of officials of the department and for my consideration. I think that kind of activity is very important.


EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT'S &quot;SAVE-10&quot; PROGRAM
John Carnell Crosbie: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To be more specific, the minister promised on behalf of the government last year that the government would lead by example with a "Save-10" program to reduce energy consumption of government by 10 per cent and to hold it at that level for ten years. We are now in the middle of 1977 and we still see ministers going around in gargantuan gas guzzling cars which are also air conditioned. Would the minister tell the House whether he has achieved the "Save-10" target of last year and if the target is likely to be

June 7, 1977
Oral Questions
achieved this year. What is happening in connection with that statement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be making a comprehensive statement on this subject in the near future. I can say, however, that as a result of that program and the co-operation of departments of the federal government as well as of the House of Commons and its staff, there has been a very significant saving over this past year. It is a saving which runs into the millions of dollars which would not have been saved without the program.


INQUIRY WHETHER HOME INSULATION PROGRAM PUT BEFORE PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question regarding the conference he had with provincial energy ministers on May 11. Will the minister confirm that at that conference he put forward an idea in principle for a retrofit or home insulation program which he estimated would cost in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion spread over seven years? According to the minister's estimate, it would save the equivalent of one and a quarter oil sand plants. Since according to the transcript several provincial ministers were enthusiastic about the proposal, at least two of them saying, "Let's get on with it", I ask the minister if he has received his colleague's authorization to put a definitive proposal for a home insulation program before the provincial governments?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well briefed on the proceedings of that energy conference. As he knows, it is true that I have long favoured such an approach and long favoured a co-ordinated, co-operative approach to energy conservation in this country. I took that position from the start. I have already talked with some provincial ministers and in the next few days will be holding further discussions with provincial ministers. I hope it will be possible to work out with them a set of undertakings which provincial governments would give if it is possible for the federal government to decide in favour of the significant program to which the hon. member referred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is apparent that lack of authorization from his colleagues and not lack of co-operation from the provincial governments is the obstacle to going ahead with the program-


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: How do you know?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -even though when answering previous questions the minister said that the large sums of money involved are the obstacle; since according to his own figures the $1.5 billion program would cost slightly more than $215 million a year if spread over seven years, I ask, does he not think it worthwhile to make an

investment of $215 million each year, which, according to his own figures would save us some 2.5 billion gallons of oil per year, a saving of $1.25 billion annually, save as well $750 million on imports, plus relieve us of the necessity of building another tar sands plant. Is this not a good investment? Can the minister not persuade that hard-headed Scot who sits as the Minister of Finance that this would be the best investment the government could make?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not accept your description of the Scot.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. gentleman's representations before. That he makes strong representations is well known and understood by my colleagues. We are giving the matter consideration.


LENGTH OF TIME SUBSIDIZATION OF SYNCRUDE PRODUCT WILL CONTINUE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At the same energy ministers conference the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that when the Syncrude plant goes on stream next year, the government will be required to subsidize that plant's production in order that it can be paid the promised international price. Does that still stand? And, though the minister indicated that the government intends to go up to the international price, he has always qualified that statement by saying we would not go above the United States price, which is below the world price. Does that mean that the government intends to continue subsidizing the product of the Syncrude plant even after we have reached the United States price, and does that not indicate the real savings we can make if the minister can persuade his colleagues to put in place the home insulation program?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the commitment to the world price stands. As for the hon. member's interpretation regarding the world price exceeding the United States price, or more particularly exceeding the present Canadian price and the requirement of a subsidy from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that subsidy will be paid in the national interest.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Some time ago the minister took part-indeed we took part together-in an important meeting or seminar in Victoriaville
June 7, 1977

on the furniture industry, and since then that industry, which is the main industry of the region, is facing increasingly serious difficulties, particularly due to imports and the need for industries to market their products in common. Could the minister tell the House if he has had time, since the seminar, to make a very careful examination of that problem, and has he already worked out ways to help those companies?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we asked for a report on the situation of the furniture industry and the hon. member, who was with me in Victoriaville, knows that the report was already examined jointly by officials of my department and the members of the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association but I have had no final answer as yet. However, as soon as that study is completed, it will be a pleasure for me to inform the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister's position but he will also understand the importance of this question on a situation which becomes worse each day. Would the minister be prepared to have a civil servant of his department get in touch as soon as possible with the leaders of the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers' Association to take stock of what happened since the workshop and take urgent action in this area if possible?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I shall be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing another hon. member, I want to mention the presence in the gallery of the French delegation to the Uth meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, headed by a member of the National Assembly, Mr. fimile Bizet.


INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the problem of transboundary pollution. My concern arises from the imminent danger of United States-Canada conflicts over oil tanker traffic into Cherry Point and the extension of Dome's drilling permit in the Beaufort Sea. Will the minister give urgent consideration to opening negotiations with the United States on the extension of the definition of boundary waters in the International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to include saltwater bodies, such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, through which the Canada-U.S. boundary passes?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member is more familiar with the treaty concerned and the arrangement than I am. I will certainly take this under advisement. In the meantime, I can advise him, as I advised the House last week, that there are quite comprehensive negotiations underway with the United States on a variety of issues related to the problem he has cited.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: On May 19 I
asked the Acting Prime Minister to investigate interim compensation provisions for Canadian victims of pollution of our west coast by United States. On June 2, my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question and he replied that he would have an answer ready for us the next day. I now ask the minister, will Canadian victims of oil spill damage be eligible for compensation under United States legislation and has or will the government of Canada make representation to the United States government to this effect or bring in comparable compensation legislation to protect the fisheries and foreshore of British Columbia?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I say once again, with the greatest of respect for the hon. member's justifiable concern, that obviously an answer given orally on this may well lead to some misunderstanding in the event of claims and so on. I would prefer if the hon. member and others who have asked this question would agree that I provide a written answer which would be the considered response. I think it is now in the process of preparation. If not, I will see that it is done immediately.


CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP MEETING ON OIL SPILLS ON PACIFIC COAST-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether he has had any kind of a report, even an informal one, from the recent meeting in Victoria of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group when they were considering this very important matter of oil spills in that area? They made the recommendation that a joint approach be made possible, even a joint bilateral agreement covering such matters as clean-up facilities properly located, a multi-million dollar compensation fund, the question of liability, traffic controls, construction and crewing standards, not to mention research into oil carriage technologies as they might affect the choice of oil ports. If he has not heard, is he prepared to react to this mini-report which I have just given him?
6372

June 7, 1977
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard in accordance with the word the hon. member used, informally, from members of the delegation on both sides. I was quite impressed by the obvious degree of mutual agreement there was between the Canadian and United States representatives. I am told that I am to get a written assessment or report on those meetings which will undoubtedly contain these specific suggestions. On the surface, 1 see nothing about them that we could not move toward achieving. Once I get the formal statement from the Canada-U.S. committee, I will deal with it at once.


TRANSPORT
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It is a follow-up to the one I asked him on Friday with regard to the sinking of the William Carson. Can the minister report now? I might say I was very pleased with the positive nature of his original answer and the sympathy he had for the situation. Can the minister now give a more substantive answer with regard to what replacement will be provided for the William Carson?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my officials and the officials of CN Marine have been discussing this matter. It now appears that it may be possible to put the Ambrose Shea into this service in place of the William Carson, at least throughout June, and have the Marine Cruiser go into operation when the ice conditions clear. These, of course, are very temporary arrangements while we look at longer term solutions.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In light of the fact that a schedule of fees to be paid by foreign vessels and foreign nations fishing within 200 miles of the United States coast has been proposed by the United States national oceanographic and atmospheric administration, which it is hoped will enable the United States to recover about 40 per cent of the cost incurred in permitting foreign vessels within their zone, I ask the minister what steps he is planning to take other than charging Canadians for fishing licences while foreigners are freely catching our resources, in order to recover some of the costs borne by Canadians in providing surveillance, navigational aids and coastguard service to all ships, Canadian and foreign, operating within our economic zone.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member in the Fisheries and Forestry Committee, the decision not to charge fees for 1977 was made on the basis that this was a transition year. The decision was made by myself. We are looking at a possible fee schedule for the coming season, 1978. We are also looking at other possibilities, in place of cash payments. We might prefer research vessels or research capacity which some nations fishing off Canadian shores have in surplus at the moment. We are studying this whole business for 1978.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Since the United States proposed schedule calls for a fixed access fee of $1 per gross registered ton, not to exceed $5,000 per vessel, plus a fee of 3.5 per cent of the total dockside value of the pounds of fish allocated to the nation based on the price paid to United States fishermen, will the minister consider a similar set of fees in order to recover part of the annual costs of research and pollution control administration, enforcement and coastguard services provided to the foreign fleets when they are operating within our 200-mile zone?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at this type of schedule and others.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the recent draft agreement between the federal and Quebec governments on immigration and the discussion with Mr. Couture, did the minister raise the question of linguistic rights of immigrants to Quebec? Further, did he insist that if an agreement were to be formalized that all immigrants entering the province of Quebec be given the choice of learning either of Canada's two official languages?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: That matter was not discussed, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister indicated to the House that a joint working committee had been struck in order to prepare final proposals for the formalization of the agreement. Will he insist that those guarantees be included in any agreement which is finalized?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The subject under discussion is wide-ranging and a lot of areas will be considered.

June 7, 1977



PRESERVATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the growth of socialized medicine requiring identification of the patient and his treatment, information which was inviolate before the advent of state medicine but which can be, and has been used by communist countries against patients. My question is: what protection has been provided to preserve the confidentiality of relations between doctors and patients in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to an area of federal responsibility, 1 must remind him that as far as the health of civil servants is concerned, quite specific rules compel medical officers to maintain the confidentiality of the medical information they obtain from their patients. In fact, I think the hon. member is concerned about a form which the Ontario Department of Transport is using to request those who are seeking a driver's permit to have their physicians complete a detailed form to be forwarded later to the Ontario Department of Transport. Unfortunately, because this matter is a provincial responsibility, I suggest the hon. member should raise this issue with the Ontario government.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Is the minister aware that the Ontario Medical Association has asked the provincial ministry of health to stop turning over the names of psychiatric patients to the federal government? I want to ask the minister why that practice is being followed.


Marc Lalonde: I understand that the statistical data which are computed under medicare are of a quite general character and do not mention the names of the individuals, but again, I should like to inquire and verify the hon. member's assertion.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the government House leader supplementary to that directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration by my hon. friend from Provencher. It has to do with Quebec Bill No. 1. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration told us there has been no discussion with the Quebec authorities with respect to the exercising of linguistic choice by immigrants to Canada. Is any discussion being undertaken between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec in the light of the statement made by
Oral Questions
culture minister Laurin that amendments might be brought forward to Bill No. 1 in a number of areas-the Francization of business, the precedence of the language law over the charter of human rights as a means of securing compliance with education provisions and so on. The minister told me a week ago that he was not prepared to advise a representative of the government to appear before the Quebec parliamentary commission. My question is this: in the light of the statement by Mr. Laurin and of the obvious reaction to the answer given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, does the government intend to take any public initiative with respect to possible amendments or, in the alternative, is the government prepared to make a statement in the House with respect to what amendments might be considered appropriate in the circumstances?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker. At the present time, as the hon. member has pointed out, the bill is before a committee, or commission, as it is called, of the Quebec National Assembly and residents of Quebec and a variety of organizations are making their views known. It seems to us that this would be a most appropriate way to proceed at this stage and that any intervention before the committee would likely be counterproductive.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Walter David Baker: It will not have been lost on the minister that I am not suggesting that that is the only alternative. I have also suggested to him the possibility of making a statement in the House of Commons with respect to what, I hope, are the concerns of the government in connection with Bill No. 1. On another aspect, may I ask whether the question of Inuit language rights has been resolved? On Friday, the Prime Minister said that this matter had, in accordance with his understanding, been settled but I have since learned that this is not the case and that the Inuit people are not satisfied on the ground that they are not specifically excluded so as to comply with the James Bay agreement. Has any initiative been taken by the government with respect to that aspect? Has any legal opinion been obtained with regard to it? Perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will deal with the question specifically.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the President of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association just before lunch. While the Quebec minister has promised to exempt them from Bill No. 1 they have not yet seen the wording of the exemption and they are concerned for this reason. They wish to examine the wording and, if necessary, make some input into it so as to ensure that they are exempted.
80018-2'/2

June 7, 1977
OraI Questions


Walter David Baker: I am glad to hear that such a meeting has taken place. Is the hon. gentleman using his offices as a federal minister of the Crown to insist that a concern which I am sure every member of the House regards as a legitimate one, is satisfied in the amendments which will be brought forward by the government of Quebec, according to the culture minister with respect to Bill No. 1?


William Warren Allmand: I told the President of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association and the representatives of the Cree that I would do everything possible, everything they required, to make sure the agreement was fully protected and that it would not be infringed upon by Bill No. 1. We are setting up certain meetings here in Ottawa to explore other possibilities in dealing with this matter. Moreover, I have agreed not to have Bill C-9 proclaimed until all these issues have been settled.



REPORT ON ARSENIC POISONING IN YELLOWKNIFE-REASON FOR DISSENT OF DR. BLEJER

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns a report which was tabled, I think, a few days ago on the arsenic poisoning problem up in Yellowknife. One of the consultants involved in that study, Dr. Blejer, who was engaged at the insistence of both the Native Peoples Brotherhood and the United Steel Workers Union, has now dissented from the conclusions of that report, indicating that in his view there is a danger to residents of Yellowknife in connection with the mining there. Would the minister advise us whether he has accepted the general conclusions of the task force concerning the danger and whether he has had an opportunity of contacting Dr. Blejer, an eminent authority in the field of public health, to determine why he has so vigorously dissented from the report on arsenic poisoning in Yellowknife?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all the document involved has not been tabled in this House since it is not a government report but a report from the Canadian Public Health Association. I received a copy and made it public yesterday through a press release indicating my full support for the findings and recommendations of this interim report. A final report will be prepared in a few months by the committee established by the Canadian Public Health Association.
As to Dr. Blejer's comments, I read them in this morning's papers and I noticed the doctor stated he had not received a copy of that report. I would have thought that before making any such comments he would have taken the trouble to get a copy and read it. I do not have any other comments to make concerning this doctor's statement, who seems to make statements even before reading the published reports.



REPORT ON ARSENIC POISONING IN YELLOWKNIFE-USE OF COMPANY DOCTORS TO CONDUCT TESTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations of the report is that company doctors be used in the process of examining those miners who are working in that particular plant. I know the minister is familiar with the problem at Thetford Mines in Quebec where company doctors were used, and many years passed before miners were found to have asbestosis. Would the minister advise the House if he is in agreement with that recommendation, that there should be company doctors examining their own employees to determine whether there is arsenic poisoning? Does the minister accept the conflict of interest proposition, that it should be either doctors from his own department or independent doctors who conduct these examinations?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to remind the hon. member that there is within this business concern an established union legally recognized under the laws of the Northwest Territories as well as the management. I imagine the business concern and the union will examine the report and come to their own conclusions about the best way to ensure the employees' health within this concern.
With regard to the hon. member's general assertion, I would like to tell him that I have more confidence in the ethics of the doctors of this country than he seems to have.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert B£chard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):
Mr. Speaker, on May 19 last, I put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment drawing his attention to the critical situation of the fishing industry, and especially the herring industry, in the Magdalen Islands, and this for the third year in a row. In his absence, the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion replied that the government was deeply interested in the problem and that, in any event, my concern would be conveyed to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment upon his return.
The situation having since deteriorated to the extent where smoke-houses and processing plants are completely for other species without work or nearly so, depriving both fishermen and other workers in the industry of their livelihood, the only one on which they can depend, can the minister or his department, in agreement with the province of Quebec which also has responsibilities in that field, put forward an assistance program to help out that hard pressed population?
June 7, 1977
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Rom£o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we will no doubt do all we can. We have not always waited for other jurisdictions to act; we have acted unilaterally when time came to help out groups of fishermen falling under the Fisheries Prices Support Act.
I shall look into the statements of the hon. member. I shall ask that they be confirmed, not that I doubt his word, but that I should like to know exactly what the facts are, and shall then advise him or the House.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the response he gave me on May 12 with respect to certain billings forwarded to CALPA and CATCA, in regard to their invitation by the government to come to Ottawa last June to assist the government and the ministry in the resolution of the air transport strike that was on at that particular time, I wonder if the minister is now in a position to indicate to these two organizations, and to the country, whether the government's policy will be to pick up the bills or the costs incurred for those two groups to come to Ottawa? That will indicate to us the government's policy with respect to the bringing of various groups into Ottawa for reasons of national importance.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not speak about picking up bills because there are some costs which may well be borne by other organizations. On reviewing the file on this matter, I did conclude that there were reasons why the organizations might have been led to believe that the costs incurred by Transport Canada were going to be borne by Transport Canada, and I have directed that those costs not be pursued further with the organization.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services; but in his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Now that the brochure illustrating the design of the silver dollar struck to commemorate the silver jubilee of Her Majesty's accession to the throne has been released, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister could indicate if the design, with its unfortunate symbolism of an empty throne propped up against what appears to be one of the late Mackenzie King's handcrafted ruins, was personally approved by the Minister of Supply and Services?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was. In fact, I saw it myself and it reminded me of the Senate Chamber.


Mr. Paproski:: It was a ruin, was it not?



STEPS TO ENSURE PROMPT DELIVERY OF SILVER DOLLAR COMMEMORATING HER MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE

Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker,
I went down to the Senate yesterday to check it out for any similarity, and 1 could not find any.
My supplementary question is: assuming that collectors and people wanting souvenirs of the event may order sets featuring this coin as advertised, in spite of its design, what steps has the department taken, in conjunction with the Royal Canadian Mint, to avoid the extensive delays in delivery which have bothered those who ordered Olympic coins? I have had constituents who have waited almost a year for delivery. Now we have another offer, and one would hope we would have a better performance.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have an immediate answer for the hon. member with respect to the delays. I will inquire today and be ready to answer him tomorrow.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a brief supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. It is in regard to a question which was asked of him earlier with respect to the statement expected on June 9 by the Solicitor General. Encouraged by the commitment the hon. Minister made about the comprehensiveness of the statement which the minister will make, I would like assurance that the Acting Prime Minister will communicate to his colleagues two critical points which we consider to be important. One is that the minister will include in his statement the charge which was laid against the officers who broke into the newspaper office in Montreal, and whether it was the same charge which was laid and to which they finally pleaded guilty. The other question relates to an assurance that the comprehensive statement includes those actions which were carried on in 1971 in the office of Praxis Corporation in Toronto.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE

June 7, 1977



INDEXING OF PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDY BY SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Some weeks ago I raised with him the question as to whether he would consider publishing actuarial studies made by the superintendent of insurance on the proposals for full indexing of public service pensions. At that time he indicated he would take the matter under advisement. I have asked him subsequently, and now I am asking him whether a decision has been taken and when can we expect publication of these reports in light of more and better information for the administration?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, a decision has not been taken. As I indicated to the hon. member in another forum, I am committed to making public the results of the independent actuarial examination when it is completed, which I expect to be in the next few months.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting in addition thereto, and as a basis of comparison with the studies of the superintendent of insurance which was made quite some time ago and completed, that he is now waiting for further studies under the Tomenson-Alexander or whatever may be the name of the report so that the two studies will be on a comparable basis when he publishes them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that inference is not necessarily the case.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Acting Prime Minister; but in fairness I should say first to the Chair that it might be construed as being indirectly connected to the question of privilege which I will be raising at three o'clock. If you would prefer me to defer it, I will.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It has been reported that some Leopard I tanks have been sold by an Italian manufacturer to Libya, from where they not surprisingly found their way into the hands of Soviet technical military experts, who examined them thoroughly. What steps has the minister taken to discover to what extent the security and technical effectiveness of our future main battle tank have now been hopelessly compromised before we even receive delivery of the first of them? Will the minister tell the House whether he is going to raise this matter at the meeting of NATO's nuclear planning group which begins its meetings
[Mr. Oberle.J
here in Ottawa tomorrow and, if not, what action does he propose to take?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details of the case but I will be speaking on this to other NATO ministers this evening. I do not think there has been any great compromise; it would surprise me if there had because they are pretty familiar with that tank right now. They are mighty scared of it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Leopard I's technical secrets have now been compromised, will the minister reconsider this purchase and instead approach the Krauss-Maffei company with a view to renegotiating our contract, so as to continue renting the Leopard I's until 1980 and then purchase the more modern Leopard II?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not consider that because the Leopard I is onstream, the troops are happy with it. They are winning all the competitions in Europe and bringing great pride to Canada.

[ Translation]



CUSTOMS


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: 

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) returned to a question of privilege which he had raised earlier and had deferred in order to give the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) an opportunity to participate. Yesterday the Minister of National Defence was in the House and both members participated in the question of privilege which had been raised by the hon. member for Victoria.
The foundation of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Victoria, were it accepted as a question of privilege, would be the action of the minister in misleading the House in a response he had made earlier to a question concerning the resignation of Admiral Boyle from the national defence service. Yesterday the minister indicated that as a result of the question raised by the hon. member for Victoria he had reviewed his files, and reaffirmed to the House the position he had taken earlier.
Therefore, there could scarcely be a question of any attempt, innocent or otherwise, to mislead the House. Obviously, what is at issue is a description given by the minister yesterday that one impression was taken by the admiral and a similar impression taken by the hon. member for Victoria, which are different from the impression of the circumstances taken by the minister. Obviously, that gives rise to a difference of opinion which, of course, does not fall within the bounds of a question of privilege.



MR. BALDWIN-ALLEGED ATTEMPT BY GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE WITH NEWS MEDIA

Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, attention was drawn to a possible question of privilege by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Part of the foundation was an article referring to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). Other references were made to actions or alleged actions taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) who was not in the House yesterday. I had indicated that it would be appropriate, certainly so far as those members who wished to contribute to the question and make reference to the actions or alleged actions of the Minister of Transport were concerned, that this should await his presence. I see the minister here.
So far as the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is concerned, it does not seem to me that he is put on the defensive in the sense of being accused of anything in respect of these questions. 1 observe that the hon. member is not here today. There has been some indirect information to the effect that perhaps there is some explanation for this absence, but in the circumstances I wonder whether it would not be appropriate for those members who are here today and who wish to participate in the discussion to do so. Unless 1 hear during the course of their remarks some reason to defer until the hon.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is present, I would prefer to have them make their contributions now. Then probably 1 would stand the matter over until the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is in the House, unless there is some reason to behave differently.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) telephoned me about two hours ago. He is engaged in a court action in the province of Quebec, I believe in connection with the Air Canada issue. I think he is most anxious to make some comments. There is a separation between the allegations with respect to him upon which a question of privilege might be founded, and the situation relating to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). They are quite separable. Since the Minister of Transport is here, as are others who wish to comment, it may be that the Chair might feel disposed to proceed and hear the discussion. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont did ask me to indicate to the House and to the Chair that he would appreciate the opportunity to enlarge upon the comments he has made, which he is most anxious to do in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Then 1 think I will proceed with the course of action I have outlined and continue with the comments, unless I see some reason to interrupt them on the basis of fairness to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to stress the fact that the most basic duty of parliament is the protection of our freedoms, not the least of which is freedom of the press; in other words, to protect the right of fair comment by the press on all matters whatsoever, including comments on members of this House or members of the cabinet.
Last weekend the Canadian magazine failed to appear in the province of Saskatchewan, directly because distribution was withheld by two newspapers which carry the supplement in that province. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the editor of the Canadian magazine, in an open-line radio program yesterday which subsequently has been quoted extensively in the news media, stated that he was advised by lawyers of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on Friday, June 3, at 6 p.m., that legal action would follow if the Canadian magazine appeared. He further stated that he had sought legal advice and was told that if the article's facts were correct there were no grounds for libel; and since he believed the facts to be correct the decision was made to publish.
I also draw attention to the fact that Mr. M. C. Sifton, president of the company which carries the Canadian magazine in Saskatchewan and which failed to carry the article in that particular issue, has been widely quoted as using these words: "The straw that broke the camel's back was when we were threatened by a legal suit for defamation. Quite frankly, we would just as soon not find ourselves in that position''.
It seems to me that there is, therefore, apparently a possible attempt to prevent publication and subsequent distribution of

June 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr Baldwin
the Canadian magazine allegedly by persons acting on behalf of the Minister of Transport. Therefore, I consider that the principle that parliament has the direct duty to protect freedom of the press may possjbly have been grossly violated. If such violation has taken place, then I contend that it directly interferes with the rights and privileges of this parliament properly to perform one of its basic functions. In other words, a minister of the Crown-in this case the Minister of Transport-could possibly, either directly or indirectly, bring pressure on two newspapers to the extent that they failed to distribute the section of their paper carrying an article entitled "The Unhappy Landing of Otto Lang".
It seems to me that there is certainly nothing in the rules of this House, and certainly nothing in tha traditions of British parliamentary democracy, that permits a member of the House, particularly a member of the cabinet, to have any part whatsoever in using, directly or indirectly, personal influence to stop publication or fair comment by a free press. This situation requires nothing short of a full investigation by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. In addition, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should appear as a witness before that committee so that the Canadian people know whether or not it is government policy to allow such things to happen as apparently may have happened here.
There is another aspect of this matter which I believe interferes with the privileges of every member. The duties of a member are fairly well known and rather clearly defined, and I contend that it is a breach of the privileges of all members of the House when one member, or representatives acting on behalf of that member, may have used their positions or their influence for purposes of self-interest, in that it reflects on the image that the Canadian people have of politicians in general and of members of the House in particular. That can only breed an attitude of disdain and cynicism on the part of the Canadian people toward members of parliament, and thereby hinder and damage the ability of members of the House, who have come here to work in the best interests of Canada, to perform their jobs properly.
The article referred to the Minister of Transport in various ways, but I quote only three words. It said he was "aloof", "obstinate" and "sometimes obnoxious". While the Minister of Transport obviously may not agree with this-and all of us would probably not agree with it if it were said about us in particular-nevertheless, is it not fair comment that such remarks in the press should not be suppressed, whether or not the Minister of Transport likes it or whether or not any other member of the House might like it if it were said of him?
Finally, if this incident turns out to be in fact as it has been reported, then I believe the committee on privileges and elections has no alternative not only to consider it but to come to the conclusion that the resignation of the Minister of Transport from the government or his dismissal by the Prime Minister be requested. Indeed, I would go further and say that if the facts are established as being true, the Minister of

Transport should no longer hold a seat in the House. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that this entire situation should be examined by the committee on privileges and elections in order that the people of Canada and the House in particular will know what really happened and that the matter is being properly dealt with.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -I believe even some of the words quoted by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) reveal the absence of any question of privilege here, since the words he quoted suggested that the distribution of these magazines was withheld by the newspapers themselves. There was a difference of view in some quarters as to whether or not that was the right legal position for them to take. But surely the hon. member is not suggesting-and I hope no hon. member would suggest-that a member of parliament is not protected also by some of the laws of the land in relation to libel or slander.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I know that many of us in politics frequently go a long way in simply turning the other cheek when various instances of defamation arise, and surely in each case it is a personal decision whether we ought to do that. In this particular case I have reached the personal conclusion that it had been done too often and that I should take a stand in exercising my legal rights, and I drew that to the attention of the people who were associated with the particular publication.
I will not say anything more about that, because the actual issues involved may well be resolved before the courts. But I want to say two things. First of all, I believe it important that I take a step such as this because of the increasing tendency of persons in political life to be maligned in such a way that it might be even less attractive for others who might regard a political career as a possibility, to enter that career. Certainly,
I may say that it has very serious costs which I wish hon. members would take very carefully into consideration. It may be that as a member of parliament I could continue to turn the other cheek, but in the end I must have regard for the consequences and impact upon the attitudes and feelings of my family and my friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Secondly, I would like to talk about the way the allegations have been brought to the House. I presume that the switch from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to the hon. member for Leeds has meant a difference in standard and in approach between them, but you will notice that in introducing this matter the hon. member for Leeds, who ended grandly by suggesting that my seat should be put on the line over the issue, very carefully avoided following certain parliamentary procedures in making a charge by laying his seat on the line.
June 7, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: In matters such as this, members of parliament may actually participate in the spread of remarks, innuendo and slander, with what may be fair comment in reporting by the press, by the way in which they raise these matters in this place. I suggest that the hon. member for Leeds should not be allowed from time to time to introduce matters in this way without making a charge.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I did.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member said that certain principles "may have possibly been grossly violated". He said, also, " ... to allow such things to happen as apparently may have happened here". I wrote down these words as he said them. He also said " ... may have used their positions". In all these instances he is making suggestions, charges and innuendo, of what? If he is charging wrongdoing of me as a member of parliament, let him make a charge and let him lay his seat on the line to back that charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has just observed one of the worst examples of cloying hypocrisy since many of us came here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said he thought the time had come to take a stand. The only time the Minister of Transport decided the time had come to take a stand on behalf of members of parliament was when the heat got so hot on him that he decided he had to climb out of his Jetstar.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: When the positions of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) were distorted in the press and when his personality was examined in the press, was he defended by the Minister of Transport? No, the Minister of Transport sat on the sidelines and grinned. When the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) was leader of the opposition and an hon. member of this House of Commons, when he was attacked and when his position was distorted by the press and the public of this country in many ways, and by the Liberal party, did the minister stand up and defend the hon. member for Halifax? No. The honour of this House and the honour of members of parliament have no more glowing an advocate than when the advocate himself is attacked in the press. That is why I call it cloying hypocrisy.
Let me get to the merits of the case, now that we have disposed of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin


Walter David Baker: The minister may have been upset by the fact that his story is juxtaposed beside an advertisement in the same publication saying, "Losing 78 pounds saved my marriage". I do not know whether that has anything to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That's pretty cheap.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question at stake here in this proposed question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is essentially as it concerns the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). There have been other allegations concerning statements made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), and there has been some indication of the intention of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to raise questions about some broadcasting matter in Newfoundland.
However, in so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned, the question is whether the minister has exercised that legal right which is the right of every citizen, and in so doing has done something which exceeds or in some way offends the privileges of a member of parliament. That is the issue at stake, and I think we ought to avoid arguing the matter as though we had accepted the fact that that was a question of privilege, and concentrate on whether that constitutes a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was just clearing my throat. I am now coming to that part of the argument. I think all hon. members of the House of Commons know, when we are dealing with a matter of this kind, we are not obliged to make out a case but we are obliged to make out a prima facie case at first blush and then the matter is to be examined by the committee. Aside from the point raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), which I think he did in a very quiet and responsible way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -the question is whether it offends the privileges of this House for a minister of the Crown, in the exercise of what he has called his personal rights as an individual, to deal with a newspaper or to deal with a publication. Is he in any different position in this country than the ordinary citizen, particularly when the article refers directly to the minister of the Crown and his position of esteem-at least in the opinion of the journalist-in the country and to his capacity as a minister of the Crown and as a member of parliament? Is that minister in any different position today?
Is the case affected in any way by the fact that between the Canadian magazine and the newspapers which are its benefactors, in terms of articles which are published each week, there is an indemnity between F.P. Publications and the Canadian magazine so that if they, in a sense, said "Publish and be damned", the newspaper might refuse to publish on the some-

June 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
what specious grounds that it might face an action? Is the fact that, even in that event, it would face no loss, a consideration for this House and the committee in deciding the extent of the pressure which was obviously brought by the minister through his communication, by his admission, to those newspapers? Is it significant that all the other newspapers in this country except the ones in Saskatoon and Regina published that article about which the minister complains so vehemently?
Aside from the fact that there is nothing in that article other than what every member of parliament may from time to time have to put up with, 1 do not think there is a solicitor in this House who, even looking at it at first blush, would ever consider it libellous and slanderous. Does that make a difference in the case of a minister of the Crown? Hon. members might ask why I single out a minister of the Crown. What has happened to the publishing and news dissemination industry in this country is that great newspapers and publishing houses in Canada own radio stations and television stations, all of which are licensed by the CRTC, which is not a creature of this parliament but a creature of the government. Therefore, in those circumstances I think it weighs very heavily upon the back of any minister of the Crown, who is in a different position in that sense than anyone else to approach a newspaper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on!


Walter David Baker: I read the article in question and I did not find, quite frankly, anything to justify the letter or to justify the hurt the minister apparently felt.


Some hon. Members:: Who are you?


Walter David Baker: Apparently I am one who
is not nearly as sensitive as this minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The minister appeared on television last night and said he was very concerned about this article because it might discourage others from going into public life. That is not what discourages others from going into public life; it is the hypocrisy of some ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think it is a very important consideration for this House to examine the depth of impact of a threat to sue by a minister of the Crown who is much different from anyone on the street.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: When that threat is made to an organization which has interests in other publishing and information dispensing fields which are subject to the jurisdiction of a board or commission which is answerable to the government of Canada, that makes the threat a much deeper one. This is not a case of a thin-skinned minister who could not stand the heat and decided to write a letter. This is a case of

limiting the publication to one area, flying in the face of an indemnity to indicate the influence, at least on a prima facie basis, that was brought to bear upon that publication by a minister of the Crown-not Otto Lang, barrister and solicitor, but the Minister of Transport: as the article says, the only one who wanted to be Minister of Finance. That is the impact. That is the point in this matter, that the minister has a responsibility not to attempt to suppress any information anywhere in this country as a result of his position.
I should like to see tabled the legal opinion, dated the day it was given, that the article was defamatory, with the authorities upon which the solicitor relied. The facts of the matter are that a number of other publications in this country were not intimidated by this minister, and if there was an examination, as I am sure there was, by the solicitors for those other newspapers which dared to publish in face of the threat by the minister, then I would think not all of the solicitors would be out of step but the solicitors for F.P. Publications.
I do not know whether a case will be made out before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We are not here to decide that; we are here to decide whether there is a prima facie case.


An hon. Member:: You have made up your mind.


Walter David Baker: You bet I have made up my mind. The committee on privileges and elections should decide whether it ought to examine the matter further. I think the case reeks of that prima facie quality and the matter should go to the committee where it could be dealt with fully.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for only a few minutes, and I hope what I have to say may help to clear the air a bit and get us to the point that is really before the House.
The first thing I should like to say is that I deplore the way in which cabinet ministers, almost every time a serious issue of this kind is raised, draw out the old argument that the hon. member raising the matter ought to put his seat on the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nowhere in the Standing Orders, nowhere in the rules, nowhere in the precedents, is there a requirement that that be done. In a few cases in our history it has been done voluntarily by the member making the attack or making the charge, but there is no requirement that any time a member of the House raises an issue he should put his seat on the line.
The second thing I should like to say is that I fully support the right of any member of this House, whether a private member or minister of the Crown, to take whatever action he feels necessary under the law if he feels he has been libelled or slandered. There is no question about that. It is not so long ago that a former minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, took action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for
June 7, 1977

something that had been said which he regarded as defamatory. I believe the matter was settled out of court. I hope I will be understood if I say, just to show that my stand is a consistent one, that some 30 years ago I sued for libel in the Supreme Court of Ontario over certain things that had been written against me. My hon. friend to my right wants to know if I won. The answer is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hasten to add that the court ruled 1 had not been damaged, so all I received was $1 and costs. Of course, when one hires a lawyer, costs are important.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to be clear on this. In my view, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has every right, if he feels he has been treated in a defamatory way, to take action under the law. But I would argue that that is not the issue before us, and just as we should not be discussing any requirement on the part of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) or the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to put their seats on the line, neither should we be questioning the right of the Minister of Transport to seek action if he feels he has been libelled.
What is at issue-and Your Honour has already made that point and asked us to address ourselves to it-is whether the privileges of parliament, the privileges of the country which we represent, are interfered with or are violated when a minister of the Crown uses his weight as a minister to stop publication by certain newspapers in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That, to me, is the
whole issue. I hope the discussion will stay on that issue and that we will not be tempted to get into too many things that members might like to say about the Minister of Transport or the hon. member for Leeds. The issue is very clear. Is it true, or is it not true, that the minister, by weight of his position as minister, was able to prohibit or prevent the publication of the Canadian magazine in two newspapers in Saskatchewan last Saturday and, if so, where does that fit into our rules?
I imagine that some who take part in this debate today may ask what Standing Order or what rule says that newspapers have the right to publish no matter what it is they print. The question of whether something that has been published is libellous is decided afterwards by the courts. But surely the right to stop publication, without going to court, is as serious as putting people in jail because they might do something, because of their thoughts or because of their opposition to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what this House should be doing is referring that simple question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have carefully read the proposed motion put
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River. That motion is based mainly, on the quotations attributed to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal), but there are references to other and related matters and it seems that it is the action of the Minister of Transport that is in question. Perhaps the motion ought to be reworded. I would be happier if it were and if we were dealing with the one simple issue: was it a violation of the rights of this parliament-more than the right of this parliament, the rights of this country-that we represent, to have the freedom to publish interfered with, as apparently was done by the action of the Minister of Transport?
Mr. Speaker, I said when I rose that I had only three things I wanted to say. Those are the three things. Let us have no more of this argument that members of the opposition lay their seats on the line. Let us not deny, no matter how strongly we may feel about the Minister of Transport on this side of the House, his right to go to the courts to seek redress for what he may feel to be libellous. But let us not in this House rest content, or rest at all, if the freedom of newspapers to publish in this country is being interfered with by the heavy hand of the Minister of Transport.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on this question, but I think a few words ought to be said. Perhaps what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said is correct: there is no Standing Order of the House which requires a member of parliament to take responsibility for his own utterances. That may be true. But surely there is a sense of honour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: What do you people know about honour?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely there is a sense of honour which is more important than the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a rather distinguished member of the House, but other members of the House in the past have taken an entirely different view of this question, a view entirely different from that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Andre:: That is a specious argument.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Among them are two former prime ministers of Canada, one of them Sir Wilfrid Laurier who raised the point in a famous debate. The hon. member may recall, when he was absent from the House for a short period and was not a member of parliament, that there was a case before Mr. Speaker Michener in which the leader of the opposition of the day put down a motion asking the House of Commons to investigate the conduct of a particular member on the government side. That leader of the opposition was the late Mr. Pearson. He put a motion down asking that certain details of the conduct of an hon. member be investigated by the standing

June 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
committee. What was the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener as he dealt with this serious question? He said that no member could be investigated in the House of Commons unless a charge was made.
It is a fundamental question. You cannot waltz around the issue by making vague motions and ask for a member's conduct to be investigated unless a charge is made. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is advocating a course of irresponsibility. That is why I do not accept his proposition that a charge is unnecessary-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -on the part of an hon. member if the conduct of another hon. member is to be investigated.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was a misinterpretation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and wish to ask the minister a question. Does he not agree that I was not saying that a member did not have to lay a charge? I was contending that nothing in the rules or precedents requires such a member to put his seat on the line. That was the point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not true that Mr. Speaker Michener's ruling did not change that position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, of course there is no Standing Order which recommends that an hon. member should put his seat on the line. But it was advocated in the House in earlier days, when standards of honour apparently were a bit higher, that if any member falsely accused another member, and his charge could not be supported by a standing committee, he should put his seat on the line. Otherwise this is nothing but total irresponsibility.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, "Well, it is all right for a member to take action if something is published. I did it myself'. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre makes that case. Surely, what is possible for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be possible for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).


Mr. Hees:: Nobody is arguing against that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course, the argument made by the official opposition is that what the Minister of Transport did in taking private legal action or seeking legal advice was improper. But there is another point I ask the House to consider. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre right in saying that if an hon. member seeks to prevent defamation from happening, that offends against the privileges of the House?


An hon. Member:: Defamation of what?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Defamation of character. Does it offend anyone s privileges if I, feeling that a publication will defame me or slander me, prevent that defamation or slander from taking place? Am I offending any member's privileges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where is the defamation in the article?


George Harris Hees: Yes, where is it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be monstrous if any member of the House were to suggest, for example, that if the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) felt a publication coming out would damage his good name or that of any other member, he should not be entitled to the recourse of any ordinary citizen and stop it. That is the issue. I hope Mr. Speaker will not be party to that monstrous suggestion made by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has sought the floor several times. I deferred recognizing the hon. member because he indicated yesterday that he proposed to explore new ground. Therefore, I thought I ought to hear those who intended to contribute to the main question.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to debate this question with learned members who have served a long time as members of this House. Let me reinforce my point and make it clear. This question, I think, is one of the most important issues which has arisen in the five years I have served as a member of parliament. Is not the fundamental question before the House the freedom of the press of this country? It is not a question of whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) feels he was defamed, or if I or anybody else feel we might be defamed. Surely we are considering a fundamental question, the protection of the rights of the press of this country.
We are also considering the responsibilities of a cabinet minister who may influence events and has some power to determine what eventually happens in the press, particularly with regard to licensing arrangements. Aside from all that, what we are doing in the House is in order to be absolutely certain that the freedom of the press, the underlying foundation of liberty and democracy, is not threatened. I argue seriously that the individual member of parliament who is without administrative or legislative responsibility, except as to the manner of his voting, is in a position fundamentally different from that of a cabinet minister who may be in a position to exercise power and influence over a publication. Surely that must be taken into consideration.
I am not greatly concerned about what was or was not said in that particular article, but I am desperately concerned about the liberty of the press and if the press feels it cannot publish because of its concern. I do not want the press to feel
June 7, 1977

that cabinet action may make it impossible for it to carry out its responsibilities.
I find the reaction of hon. members opposite astonishing, for 1 consider this one of the most important, significant questions parliament has considered in the last several years. The question is, how are we to act in this House, and what protection does this country's press have against the possibility of intimidation by cabinet ministers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I shall address myself to several aspects of the matter before you. I suggest that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) raised not only the question concerning the conduct of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang); he raised in this House what appears to be a whole series of courses of conduct on the part of members of the government. He suggested that if Your Honour found a prima facie case of privilege, he would move the following motion;
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections inquire into the statement alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, which appear in today's edition of the Globe and Mail, and into related or other incidents, which indicate that the rights of parliament on behalf of the people to have full and unabridged reporting of the actions of government are being threatened.
I do not stand to make a charge against anyone. I do stand to put certain facts and circumstances before this House which 1 think should be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. 1 first want to address myself to the question involving the Minister of Transport. There is no question that the Minister of Transport has the right to take legal action against anyone for defamation, as we all do. No one questions that. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that through behind-the-scenes means, because of his position as a cabinet minister he was able to stop publication in a certain province of an issue of the Canadian magazine. If I objected to the publication of some article about me, because I am an opposition member and not a member of the government there would be no way I could stop publication of that article anywhere in Canada. They would pay no attention to me.
What would have happened had I gone to the Minister of Transport and told him that they were going to publish an article about me in which I was going to be slandered, libelled, called terrible things, calling me stupid and saying other things about me? If I asked the minister to stop publication of that article and to threaten on my behalf, would he do it? Not likely. The minister used his position as a minister of the Crown. Because he is a powerful minister he was able to get the publication stopped in Saskatchewan. That is the issue.
We can sue for libel and slander. I have never bothered and I never will, because I know it is useless for a politician unless it is something so horrendous that I would have no choice, a "live or die" matter where it had to go into the courts. 1 have had things written about me ten times worse than what appeared in that article. I am dumbfounded that the minister
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
is so thin-skinned. It is the position of the minister that makes his course of action so distasteful.
I am not laying my seat on the line. I will lay my seat on the line at the time of the next election. The people of St. John's West will decide on my conduct at that time. However, I am not laying it on the line for the Minister of Transport or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). The President of the Privy Council said that we are asking for an investigation of a member. We are asking for no such thing. We are asking that the Standing Committee of Privileges and Elections consider certain facts, to establish them and, once established, to decide whether the privileges of this House have been infringed because of an attempt to interfere with the free publication of stories about members of the House by members of the media. We are asking for facts to be ascertained and a decision made as to whether this is a breach of our privileges.
Another matter arises out of this motion. The other matter was already mentioned. This is a pattern of conduct by the government. It falls into line with the investigation which the CRTC was requested to make into Radio Canada with regard to alleged separatist bias. This is all part of a pattern of conduct of an arrogant, power-mad government that is going to stop anyone critical of them if they can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a third matter which I wish to place before the House. It is related to other incidents which should be considered by this House. I refer to the question of whether it is proper for a member of the government to own, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has done since 1968, 49 per cent of the shares of a second television and radio channel in the province of Newfoundland.
I want to put that before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am not charging that that hon. gentleman has done anything improper or attempted to use any improper influence. However, I submit that it is not proper for a minister of the Crown in the government which appoints the members to the Canadian Radio Television Commission under section 5 of the act. It not only appoints the members to a seven-year term, and they can be reappointed, but decides under section 7 what pay they are to get.
Should a member of the government who has that power also be involved in ownership of a communications media in this country? I submit that is a question that has to be considered by this House-whether that is a proper situation for a minister of the Crown. The hon. gentleman in question has been a member of the government since 1968. It has been nine years since that situation has been regulated. Some decisions and steps must be taken. I submit it puts the members of the CRTC in an extremely invidious position in having to decide on matters indirectly related to the minister.
It is true that the minister now has a trust: these shares are held in trust by trustees. The minister may not have anything to do with them and no influence over them, but it is not a blind trust. The minister knows he owns the shares. This is a

June 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
matter that will come before the CRTC on June 21. It will involve the actual AM radio stations becoming owned by the trust if the CRTC approves. This is a matter that should be considered.
1 will give an example qf interference in communications and the suspicion that arises in this situation. The 51 per cent owner of Newfoundland Broadcasting Limited is Mr. Jeff Sterling, a Liberal candidate in the 1975 election-a Liberal reformed candidate. He has been a Liberal supporter since 1949. That gentleman has the most eccentric scheduling on his television and radio stations. He owns a second TV network in Newfoundland, five AM stations, and he has a licence for nine FM stations. A comparable situation would be for a member of the government to own Global TV or half of the CTV affiliates in Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They do not like it. They do not like to be questioned. I will give an example of what can happen through Liberal establishment ownership of the television and radio media in this country. A week ago last Friday I was invited by the CTV to appear on the program "Question Period", a public affairs program. When I got to Newfoundland 1 looked in the paper to see when it would be shown by the CTV affiliate, CJON. It was shown in the rest of Canada on Sunday afternoon. When I looked at the paper I discovered that it was going to be shown at three o'clock Monday morning.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: I could not believe it. I did not think even Mr. Sterling could be so eccentric as to have a public affairs program shown at three a.m. on Monday. Even I would not stay up for that. On Tuesday I checked to see if the program had been shown. I was told it had not been shown because they had lost the tape, or something stupid like that. We checked again this morning and found that it still had not been shown.
1 guess they are looking for the tape. That may not have anything to do with the fact that I am a Progressive Conservative member of parliament, or that I have had political disagreements with members of the media, but it does arouse some suspicion.
What I am putting before the House in connection with this motion of the hon. member for Peace River is another example of Liberal government domination of the communication media, interference with the free flow of information from members on both sides of this House to the people of Canada. We all know what we say here does not matter much if it is not reported. If it is not reported, how can it have any influence on what happens in the country?
There are three matters that should be considered. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) is not in his seat today. He has alluded to some of this conspiracy. We cannot go into that in detail today. There are the actions of the Minister of Transport, using his position in the government to

stop a publication. It is a new offence. It is not "lese majeste" but "lese Lang".
There is the control of TV and radio and the position of a minister of the Crown, whether a conflict of interest arises and whether it should be permitted. I had to give up my business interests when I got into public life. Does it behoove a member of the Crown, or not, particularly when it is a media that is controlled absolutely by the government or its agency? There are other matters to which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont alluded.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has managed by some ingenuous connection to link this to the principal matter before the House at the present time, and I suppose on that basis it is justified. However, I must say, with respect, that it is drawing a very long bow to use this particular incident to generate discussion about a matter which I am perfectly well aware has been on the hon. member's mind for some considerable time and one which he has discussed with a great many people, excluding only myself.
First, I am grateful to the hon. member. In view of the fact that it has been brought up, I assume 1 am entitled to make some response. I assure Your Honour that I do not intend to do so in detail. I am grateful to the hon. member for his emphasis on the fact that he is not laying any charges, nor is he suggesting any impropriety on my part. I want to reinforce that comment of his by saying categorically at the outset that in all my time in public life I have never on a single occasion sought to do anything to influence in any way, shape or form the output of any of the broadcasting associations or organizations with which I have had a very long relationship.
I would invite any member present, including the hon. member for St. John's West, to talk to the dozens, indeed, to the hundreds of people over the years who have worked for those organizations. They will, I am sure, confirm to a man that there has never been, on my part, the slightest suggestion of interference in any way. I want to lay that idea to rest in case there should be any indication that some kind of unreasonable or improper pressure has been applied. In fact, quite the contrary. The truth of the matter is, as anyone who has been in Newfoundland will attest, that the hon. member for St. John's West, both before he entered this House and since, gets substantially more coverage-not necessarily at three o'clock in the morning-than I do. Indeed, the opposition members generally have had that experience over the years.
Incidentally, in case he does still feel there was any relationship between my association and the kind of treatment we get on "Question Period", let me assure him that I commiserate with him because I, too, had to sit up until three o'clock in the morning in the vain hope I might see myself on the program about six weeks ago. Sad to relate, my experience was precisely the same as that of the hon. member, which I believe reinforces my argument that there was no association.
June 7, 1977

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that hon. members are very familiar with this issue and with the problems it creates not only for me but for all members who before entering this chamber had businesses or enterprises which in some form were subject to a degree of government regulation.
I have said before in this House, and I am content to repeat it now, that this represents not only a personal matter to the extent that it creates a problem for me, with my background in business, but that there is a much broader question of principle here-and the hon. member has touched on it-as to the way in which someone wishing to become a member of this House and who is engaged in a business or other enterprise which in some way is subject to regulatory applications-and there are hundreds of agencies which might very well be so involved- manages to deal with the situation.
I want to make one point in this regard to illustrate what 1 have sought to do over the years in this connection. The hon. member said the matter ought to have been resolved before now. I sought to resolve it, as he well knows. I sought to do so by going well beyond the guidelines. In the first place, my association with this enterprise was known long before I entered parliament. It was known to those who elected me, and it has been known since. So there was no concealment. I went beyond that in recent times when the CRTC gave me permission-a permission which was unique-to form a trust. No one has ever sought to describe it as a blind trust, for obvious reasons. But the CRTC, in what I believe was a unique decision, authorized the formation of a trust so that I could transfer to that organization the decision-making with regard to my holdings in that company. That trust made a decision to seek to sell my interest in the organization.
That is a matter of record. It is public knowledge, and hearings were held with regard to it. Far from having any control over the CRTC, the result of that hearing was a decision to turn down my trustees and deny me the right to sell my holdings in the organization. This having happened, there is clearly not very much more which can be done by my trustees other than, presumably, to seek to resolve the situation in some other way, as I gather they are now doing. Let me assure the House that I was not aware of what the trustees were seeking to do until the public announcement with regard to the new proposal was placed on public record in newspapers and the like several weeks ago. I still do not know the details, and I shall not until the hearings are held. To endeavour, through this interlocking proposal, to suggest that the hon. member may be properly aggrieved in terms of the treatment he may have received from the stations, or his views on how the stations are being operated, to the suggestion, indirectly, that I have some responsibility for that, is clearly unreasonable in the light of what I have said.
Let me end by saying this. I am not referring now to the matter of substance which brought on this particular intervention by the hon. member for St. John's West. I am answering a particular comment which was made by him. I have no argument about his raising it. I am delighted that finally he has had the opportunity to do so in the House. If he will look
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
back to the reports in Hansard about two or three years ago when this matter was raised earlier, he will find that I invited whatever agency of the House is appropriate for the task to consider not only my situation, one which, by the way, I would be very glad to lay out in considerably more detail than I have today, but also the predicament which is created by these circumstances for someone who throughout his public life has never sought unreasonably or in any other way to influence the media and who has tried to level with members on both sides of the House.
I emphasize that if the House wishes to examine this question of the way in which people in public life have interests relating in some way to their activities as members of parliament, I would have no objection whatever to these matters being discussed. I would be more than happy to outline what my situation has been over the years and, incidentally, to put forward a few proposals which I believe might help to resolve this awkward situation, not only for me and not only for other members who might be affected but for those who in future might wish to enter public life and who might question their desire to do so given the kind of circumstances we have heard about in the House today.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly because I have had some experience of these matters, having held the portfolio which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) holds today. During the period in which I held that portfolio, any time I was described in the terms he is objecting to-I have read this article very carefully, and as far as I can see the most serious accusations I can find are those describing him as pompous, objectionable and obstinate-while I was minister of transport, any time I was only called those things was a banner day for me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Any action taken by a minister is bound to be controversial to some extent. Members of the press have a perfect right to express any opinions they may hold about what a minister is doing. That is an essential part of public life. The minister's threat that he is going to bring charges against a newspaper or a newspaper reporter because of an article which simply says that he is pompous, obstinate and obnoxious is about the most childish thing I have ever heard. It degrades the whole public life of this country. It indicates that ministers cannot take criticism as well as they can hand it out. As Harry Truman said, "If you cannot stand the heat, for God's sake get out of the kitchen and get on with the business of the country."


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I choose to intervene in this debate because I consider this to be a serious and fundamental right of a citizen who happens to be a member of parliament. Regardless of what has been said in the article, every citizen, whether that citizen happens to be a member of parliament, a driller or any other worker, has the right to phone a newspaper and say that he has been maligned, held in contempt and ridiculed. I have had occasion to do this

June 7, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
myself. I cannot believe that hon. members can resort to political pettiness, venom and vindictiveness in the manner which I have seen displayed here.


An hon. Member:: Like you are doing.


Simma Holt: I am disturbed by the fact that people in the gallery are watching this kind of political plaything on such an important point of privilege. I am not sure that this is not a matter for the civil authorities and not a question of privilege of this House under citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. 1 feel it is the right of every member to use the legal remedies open to every citizen, without members of this House compromising that right in any way by adding to and compounding the ridicule and the contempt. This is a basic right we all have.
I am presently involved in a lawsuit. It was a situation where I picked up the phone and said that I was going to proceed against them if, on the advice of my lawyer, I find out I had been slandered and maligned.


An hon. Member:: After the publication.


Simma Holt: I have that right. As much as I believe in the freedom of the press, and even in the freedom of the bad press, I also have the right to challenge the press. If they are not accurate, I have that right. It is not open season on members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Some of us chose our job with great seriousness-


An hon. Member:: All of us did.


Simma Holt: When we chose to enter this business and to serve our country, it did not give the media or any other person-neither my colleagues nor the opposition-the right to demean me. As far as my reputation is concerned, I am not in the public domain. I have built a reputation over many years, as has the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Nobody has the right to malign me. This is a very important point and it should not be a political plaything, with people talking Liberal or Conservative or getting even with someone they happen not to like in this House.
My serving this country does not give everybody the right to attack me, nor does it give them the right to attack a minister. That minister and I have the right to phone a newspaper. The reason a Saskatoon newspaper would withdraw a story, just as a Vancouver newspaper did in my case, is because they know the truth about us and may be very nervous that they are indeed libelling or holding an individual up for contempt.
We are free citizens, just as the press must be free. I believe very strongly in a free press, even if it is a bad press. But I disagree heartily with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who said that the press might fear they are being inhibited. If they are being inhibited to be accurate, that is the greatest thing that can happen. In no way should any member

of this House share in the slander, the innuendo or the bad journalism which may be perpetuated here. Hon. members have contributed to it today; they have fed it and have shared in it. This may be a point of privilege, but I think it is not. We have a fundamental civil right to phone a newspaper and say that we have been slandered. I intend to pursue my lawsuit after being informed by a lawyer that I have one.
Citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition reads as follows:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" ... It should be dealt with by a motion-
Mr. Speaker, you are aware of all this. I would like to refer to the part which deals with insults and obstructions during debate, which reads as follows:
Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members.
I suspect in that regard there may be a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: The press gallery is filing out.


Simma Holt: I would like to jump one sentence in the quotation-


An hon. Member:: Jump two, Simma.


Simma Holt: The citation continues:
An attack in a newspaper article is not a breach of privilege, unless it comes within the definition of privileges above given, and then a member is bound to lay on the table the newspaper in which the article complained of appears.
A member's effort to get redress in the civil arena has nothing to do with the procedure of this House. I would like to end my comments today by referring to a definition of some editorial writers. Some of the opposition may be of the same ilk. They are the people who come out of the woods after the battle to shoot the wounded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had a rather extensive contribution to this question of privilege. I know I will benefit greatly from the contributions yet to come. I would like to get us back to the point.
In so far as the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is concerned, there are many ingredients in it. That will have to be given some reflection because it has a rather wide-ranging suggestion containing reference to a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to affect or influence relationships with the press and the reporting of activities here. That will await contribution by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) who inspired the motion.
I do not propose to be able to deal with that motion simply. However, there is one aspect with respect to it, and that is the article which appeared in the Canadian magazine over the weekend concerning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). In so far as that point is concerned, we have certainly had a good deal of discussion. We have all agreed that it is the right of
June 7, 1977

every member, as it is the right of every citizen, to take legal redress in the courts for anything. No citizen loses that right by becoming a member of the House of Commons. It is quite clear, in all of the readings on privilege, that it is erroneous to presume that a member loses any of the rights of an ordinary citizen.
One of the most important foundations of a matter of privilege is that a member enjoys neither more nor less of the rights he enjoyed as a private citizen before coming into this chamber. That has been generally conceded today to apply to all members of the House. The question has become one of two, really. Is the Minister of Transport in some separate position from that of an ordinary member; and, second, in attempting to exercise the legal right of any citizen has the minister used an influence which is not described in the motion but has been referred to?
To suggest the minister has exercised what is no more than a legal right does not meet the point. Surely it must be suggested that the minister has used an exercise which goes beyond legal terms and legal means and has done something by the use of undue influence as a result of his position as a minister. Those are the ingredients which are important if the alleged question of privilege is to succeed on those grounds.
I have not heard much discussion on those points, but I have heard discussion on some other points which were developed before. If other hon. members want to contribute, I hope their comments will be in respect of those points.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try to limit my remarks to the points you have just made. The question before the House is whether the minister has acted beyond what a citizen or even a member of parliament should, and whether his office, in fact, came into play in regard to these events. It is impossible to know that in terms of this debate. That is why I thought the minister would have welcomed an inquiry to determine whether he did abuse his office. Why does he protest so much if, in fact, what happened is as the minister has set forth in the House? It seems to me there is an excellent argument for examining before an objective body this most serious question as to whether a minister of the Crown was not protecting himself but protecting his office, which he has no right to do in terms of telephoning or contacting newspapers.
The second point I want to make is this. There is legal procedure which the minister could have used in the circumstances. He could have proceeded by way of ex parte interim injunction.


Otto Emil Lang: I did.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If the minister did get an injunction, no doubt he will tell us which court he went to and which judge granted him that injunction. That procedure was available to the minister and it would have put the conduct of the minister beyond question. A judge would have had the opportunity to
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
review the facts upon which the minister was alleging libel, and the matter would not have come before the House as it has if the minister had simply instructed his lawyers to proceed forthwith to obtain an injunction of the court against that particular publication. But that is not, as I understand the facts, Mr. Speaker, what occurred. What in fact occurred is that the minister's representatives contacted the newspapers, and only an inquiry can determine whether the minister's name as minister was used and whether the office of minister was used to control what essentially is the freedom of the press.
The point made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt) dealt with her own lawsuit, a lawsuit which took place after publication. This matter, of course, took place before publication. I am one of those who has criticized the press on many occasions. But ministers of the Crown, in the way they deal with the press, are in an extremely sensitive position. It is a very fine line as to whether they are protecting their office or their personality. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the only way you can determine in this case whether the minister has, in fact, abused his office is to accept the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) so that this House and the country can be satisfied that no abuse of the privileges of the House took place, or there was no abuse of the privileges of the press. 1 would have expected the minister to welcome such an inquiry so that he can be completely and openly cleared.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some very brief comments. When a Crown minister makes a phone call to a judge concerning a case, his action might be interpreted as interference in the due process of justice. When a minister-


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, since both the hon. member who is speaking and the previous hon. member seem to be under a misapprehension of fact and 1 think it would be useful if I cleared that up for them. There has been no suggestion by anyone that I at any time telephoned any newspaper in this connection. 1 did discuss the issue with my solicitors. My solicitors approached the two newspapers in question and indicated that a quia timet injunction was indeed the remedy which would be sought. Faced with that suggestion on the part of my solicitors, the newspapers reviewed their position and, in effect, settled out of court by agreeing not to publish and thus not to'create the issue which would have followed in a court action. I think hon. members should know that that was the procedure that was followed, which I take it the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) would agree was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the minister should not think we do not understand the problems. We understood very well. We know all this but I say that when a minister or an hon. member

Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
interferes with the due process of justice, be it even a mere request for information to know the status of the case, this action on the part of the member or his lawyer could be interpreted by the judge as an attempt to interfere with the due process of justice. When a member or a minister, directly or through designated persons, his lawyers, put pressure on the management of newspapers or other media to prevent the publication of some articles, I consider it as interference with the freedom of the press and particularly as a direct threat to the right to information of the Canadian public. And the situation is even worse if those articles are not favourable to the person who exerted indirectly that pressure.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) severely criticized the actions of the whole Liberal party and I consider that it legitimizes the proposed motion. In any event, in this country we shall study the right to information of the Canadian public which is obviously more and more restricted by interference and political interests.
Mr. Speaker, particularly in the province of Quebec, we just need to witness a growing trend toward concentration of powers by the press as in the case of Power Corporation which as you know is very close to our Liberal friends to understand that what occurred in the case of the minister has probably been happening for a long time and very often and it demonstrates that when you are in power you seem to have all rights.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, having spent a couple of years in the chair of the privileges and elections committee does not make me any more competent than any other member of the House to make a contribution on this subject, but I did bear a couple of scars in that process and perhaps I can comment briefly on the matter which is before us.
The first point I want to make is that Your Honour seems to have made very clear to the members of the House that in no circumstances does becoming a member of parliament, a minister, the leader of the opposition or the prime minister in any way reduce the civil and legal rights of any citizen. I thought I had been hearing arguments which were extremely close to that proposition, and I was very glad to hear Your Honour indicate to members of the House that that was absolutely ludicrous.
A second proposition which might be made, as was made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), namely, that an action by a member of parliament in which he threatens the use of civil procedure might in some way be wrong, illegal, immoral or in some fashion be a defence of the minister's position or his office, also falls by the wayside very rapidly, for the same reason that Your Honour gave from the chair, namely, that the right to take an action is not diminished by becoming a member of parliament or a minister. That is, of course, precisely what the hon. member for New Westminster has been arguing, that once you become a member of this place you are somehow prohibited from recourse to your civil rights.
[Mr. Fortin.J
June 7, 1977
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a worthy contribution, and I should like to endorse what he said. Every time a matter of privilege comes before this House for debate we go into a kind of song and dance as to whether or not a member who makes an accusation automatically puts his seat on the line. He does not.


Mr. Speaker:: I might ease the hon. member's mind on that. There is no confusion on that point; that question is clearly settled. The question whether or not a charge has to be laid in order to get a matter before a committee is a totally different question; but there is no precedent at all which supports the thesis that a member, by making such a charge, puts his seat on the line or that he has to put his seat on the line in order to make such a charge.


Roderick Blaker: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for making that point again, but I thought that since it comes up consistently and repeatedly, it was worth making. Another point I wanted to make is-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Roderick Blaker: -related to a prima facie case as to whether or not this is a question of privilege. To the best of my knowledge-and I am forced into the position of making a negative argument-I have never seen, in the two years I have had cause to look into precedents in this matter, any instance where the taking of a civil action by a member of parliament, a minister or other person of similar rank in the House of Commons, in any way constituted a diminution of the rights or privileges of any member of parliament. So far as I am aware-and I say this with great humility-the law of privilege makes it clear that it is in addition to those rights which we share with all other Canadian citizens.
The last point I want to make-it has been made by other members, but it deserves repetition-is that since the matter is raised in connection with the freedom of the press, I want to draw a comparison between the journalist or the editor who sees fit to go ahead and publish and takes the chance of having the case put before the independent judiciary for decision as to whether he is guilty of libel or defamation, and the one who does not publish. The issue is precisely whether or not there is truth and justification which will permit and encourage a free press to go ahead and print.
I gather from the comments made in the House that one of these two editors simply failed to have the courage of his profession, and instead of going ahead and publishing if he thought these accusations were truthful and valid, he showed the less attractive side of the profession of journalism and backed away in face of a threat of civil action. I think that no conclusion should be drawn from that event about the case of the civil rights of the minister, and any conclusion that members of the House want to draw should be drawn about the quality of an editor who did not give as his reason for withdrawing that he had made an error but stated his reason
June 7, 1977

as being that he could not face an independent court action against him.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I terminate the discussion by putting a couple of simple questions to you? May I suggest that, in the first instance, in the reference that you made to the rights of members being the same as the rights of average citizens, while it is true that we all enjoy the same rights and, I hope, we have no additional rights, it should be understood that the role of Minister of Transport transcends the role of the average citizen, at least in the perception of the public. In that context I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks made by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that the actions taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) were no more and no less than an average citizen would take, what average citizen would have the opportunity to know in advance of the publication of such an article and, indeed, would have the opportunity to stop the publication of that article at least in the province of Saskatchewan? That summarizes the concern that I, at least, and other hon. members have. I would like now to see us begin the debate on the opposition day motion.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get involved in this potentially substantive question of privilege, as was said earlier by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), but the last intervention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang)-who was formerly minister of justice-prompts me to put these few points before Your Honour. They are in line with Your Honour's admonition given earlier today and what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that the only issue is whether or not there is a prima facie case here involving the privileges of members of the House and of the people whom we represent.
I must say that I have not seen the article. I was on the move all weekend and I was not in Saskatchewan. I have not had a chance to read it. In terms of the details of the article, I have nothing to say on that, but I am intrigued by what the minister just said, namely, that he instructed his lawyers and as a result his lawyers made a phone call to at least two papers in Saskatchewan.


Otto Emil Lang: Not phone calls, letters.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister says his lawyers wrote letters to the papers in Saskatchewan. I would like to know when the minister was first apprised of the article. Was he given an advance copy? When did he give instructions to his solicitor? Were only the two papers in Saskatchewan involved, or were letters written to all the papers where this article would appear. And now that it has appeared, has the minister given instructions to commence a defamation suit against the papers which published the article? If he has not, is he suggesting a double-standard in defamation, that the facts in the article could defame him in Saskatchewan but could not do so in the
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
rest of the country? I think those are most fundamental questions.
In conclusion, let me say that I think the most fundamental question, because of the weight of office that any minister has, is whether the papers in Saskatchewan-one of them being the Sifton group, F.P. Publications; and I am aware of some of their holdings-are presently involved in any regulatory functions such as share transfers or licence applications. Obviously, the minister did not talk to them and the minister's lawyers might not have known, but in the minds of the papers this might have been inferred as indirect intimidation.
I read in the paper today that Mr. Sifton said that while he did not like the articles and did not think they were good journalism, the straw that broke the camel's back and what decided the papers not to publish was, in effect, the phone call from the minister's lawyers. The inference there could be very invidious, Mr. Speaker, especially if one or both these papers are involved in a chain which has affairs, functions and relationships with some of the federal agencies which govern radio and television. Nothing is impugned against the minister today in a personal way. What is involved is his ministerial responsibility and, coming back to what was said here earlier, whether the weight of his office was used directly or indirectly to suppress the news of this land, and thereby the freedom of the press, which I think is a fundamental privilege of which we are all aware.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how far we seem to be able to stray in the House from the subject matter at hand. It seems to me that we are dealing rather specifically with a conflict of rights and responsibilities. We are trying to determine whether or not the freedoms that members have so eloquently expressed in terms of freedom of the press, transgress certain freedoms that belong to individuals and to members. I think we have to examine that question very closely.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you have laid to rest doubts about the right of members to have access to the courts, but what hon. members seem to have forgotten is the right of the other party to have access to the courts as well. Hon. members opposite seem not to have respect for the judiciary or the judicial process, and seem not to realize that were the papers themselves to feel aggrieved, they also would have the right of access to the courts for redress of the grievance. It seems to me that both parties have those rights. It seems to me, as well, that the papers, if they were challenged, as they were, had the right to make the decision, if they felt they were on sound ground, to publish the article and to run the risk of whatever action might or might not be taken, regardless of who suggested it; and the reason they elected not to do so is that they felt they were not on sound ground.
To proceed, as hon. members have suggested, and to send the matter to committee, I believe, puts us into an inquisitorial system that finds anyone in the House guilty before he is proven to be so. I do not think that is the way this country is run. It seems to me that the press has certain freedoms which I as a member of parliament and, indeed, all ministers have the

June 7, 1977
Report of Committee
right and obligation to protect. However, what hon. members have failed to recognize and what they have failed to say anything about is the responsibility of the press to this country and to hon. members.
If hon. members have an obligation to protect freedom, they also have an obligation to insist upon press responsibility; and if, in fact, the rights of an hon. member are transgressed, we have an obligation to impose upon the press its responsibility either through the courts, through this House or through telephone calls. I suggest that if a minister has any responsibility beyond that of a member of parliament, it is to be more acutely aware of the freedoms and responsibilities the press has and to insist, even more strongly than a backbencher would insist, that those freedoms and responsibilities are honoured. In no way does that detract from the individual rights of hon. members of this House or of citizens of this country. In terms of protecting themselves and protecting hon. members of this House, the responsibilities of ministers are more acute because they also have to protect all the citizens of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: There are other hon. members who have been encouraged to contribute at this late hour of the debate. We have now spent almost two hours on the subject. It is not that it is not an important subject, but we are prejudicing and putting in jeopardy one of the few remaining allotted days for opposition commentary in the House, and I do not want to restrict the rights of hon. members. After all, we are not dealing with the course of conduct of one minister. Reference has been made in a rather dramatic way to that course of conduct, but the reference must be taken as an indication of support for the main question which is really of a much broader context and is quite a different question. That broader question relates to some remarks made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) who has indicated, for valid reasons, his absence and his desire to participate. Therefore, the matter will stand until then. If there are other hon. members who wish to participate at that time, perhaps they could hold their comments now so that we can observe the opposition day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G£rard Laprise (Abitibi): With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition.

[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; 2,249, 2,252, 2,308, 2,362, 2,383 and 2,402.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion received an application for subsidies from a French company wishing to open a pots and pans factory in Montmagny and, if so, was the application made by "Creuset"?
2.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce been in contact with one or more companies regarding the opening of new industries in Montmagny and the surrounding area and, if so (a) what are the names of the companies (b) how far have negotiations progressed?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
2. There have been no contacts with companies regarding the opening of new industries in Montmagny and surrounding area.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Who was responsible for the approval of the expenses for the Special Inquiry Division of the Quebec Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	Did Mr. Gabriel Beland, then general manager of the UIC in Quebec, refuse to continue the division and, if so, on what date?
3.	Were fires started in hotel rooms at the (a) Queen Elizabeth (b) Ritz Hotel rented by the SID in Montreal and, if so, are the circumstances surrounding the origin of the fires related to Mr. Beland's decision?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. When the SID was set up in 1973, the Chief of Benefit Control approved the expenses for the officers of this Division in Quebec.
2.	No.
3.	(a) No. (b) No.
June 7, 1977


Mr. Fortin: Does the government offer grants to those who intend to build houses that use (a) solar energy (b) wind power and, if so, under which programmes?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Urban Affairs as well as the National Research Council as follows: (a) No. (b) No. However, solar heating equipment and wind generating equipment are exempt from federal excise tax (Bill C-21, Part XVIII, January 28, 1977). A small number of single-family residential units were supported by NRC's solar heating R&D program in 1976-77, but that was not a grant program, and is not covering single-family residences in 1977-78. See also reply to question No. 1570, March 21, 1977.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Are survivor benefits, paid under the Canada Pension Plan, regarded as taxable income?
2.	How many individuals received (a) lump sum death benefits (b) monthly widow's pensions (c) monthly orphans' benefits (d) monthly disabled widower's pensions in (i) 1972-73 (ii) 1973-74 (iii) 1974-75 (iv) 1975-76 (v) 1976-77 and what was the total amount paid?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. Any amount, including survivor benefits, paid under the terms of the Canada Pension Plan is regarded as a pension benefit for tax purposes, and is subject to tax in the year of receipt. In addition to benefits paid to a surviving spouse, the plan makes provision for payments in respect of surviving children. Despite the fact that the latter-type payments are made to the person or agency having custody and control of a child under 18 years of age, the benefit is income of the child and not that of the actual recipient.
2.
Number of lump-sum death
benefits received by estates or individuals		Total amount paid
(i)	29,031	$12,550,000(ii)	28,951	13,400,000(iii)	31,601	16,500,000(iv)	33,844	19,635,000(v)	38,169	25,300,000
(b) and (d) In response to statutory amendments which became effective January 1, 1975, the benefit earlier paid to a disabled widower was outmoded due to the equality of status provisions contained in Bill C-22, 1974. Known as a spouse's pension from that date, both female and male surviving spouses qualify for benefits under equal criteria. The following
Order Paper Questions
two tables show the number of individuals in receipt of these benefits at year end, and the amounts paid for these benefit types:
Individuals in Receipt
		Disabled	Spouse's
Widows	Widowers	Pension(i)	68,241	36	(ii)	84,594	44	(iii)	101,190(iv)	120,861(')	Amount Paid	139,415Disabled	Spouse'sWidows	Widowers	Pension(i)	$48,650,400	$31,900	(ii) (iii) (iv) (v)	62,620,100	47,600	$ 86,600,200 117,140,100 150,256,900Monthly	(c)	orphans'	Total amount	benefits in pay	paid	(i)	61,996	$20,400,000	(ii)	70,963	25,000,000	(iii)	77,536	33,000,000	(iv)	86,541	41,200,000	(v)	92,794	50,000,000


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is there only one employee, who does not have the beneficiaries files, working at the office of UIC in Louiseville Quebec and, if so, what does the government intend to do to rectify the situation?
2.	Is it the practice of UIC to require unemployed persons living in Louiseville to travel to Trois-Rivicres, 30 miles away, to attend ICE Programme interviews and, if so, does the government intend to solve the problem?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. The U.I.C. has no office in Louiseville. Some services are provided by an employee of the local Canada Manpower Centre. The question will be considered when the two organizations are integrated.
2. A certain number of beneficiaries were required to travel from Louiseville to Trois-Rivieres for interviews, but this practice was discontinued in August, 1976. In 1977, these interviews are to be conducted in Louiseville by an itinerant U.I.C. officer.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are funds contributed to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan deposited in the general reserve of the government and, if so, will the government allow such funds to be deposited in Western Canada and therefore be used to benefit the Western economy?

June 7, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned: The funds contributed to the Western Grain Stabilization Plan are deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the credit of the Western Grain Stabilization Account in accordance with the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The act only provides authority for the deposit of funds into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 952, 1,019, 1,312, 2,037 and 2,429 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. In each case the reason for desiring to answer the questions in this fashion is the lengthy nature of each answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: Were outside consultants employed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs between January 1, 1975 and November 1, 1976 and, if so (a) how many (b) who were the firms or persons (c) what amount was paid to each (d) for what purpose (e) in each case, is the report available to the public and, if not, will it be published?
Return tabled.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	What amount has been spent to date on analyses, studies and surveys conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission into the proposed passenger rail programmes?
2.	Have any professional contracts been let for studies, analyses and/or surveys into the proposed passenger rail programme and, if so (a) how much was committed on each contract (b) to whom?
3.	Has the Canadian Transport Commission accepted the proposal in the Sim's Report (presented to DOT task force, 1975) for one line of passenger rail service across the country, with feeder services from it and, if so, what cities, presently serviced by CN or CP, will no longer be serviced by the proposed lines?
4.	Has the feasibility of consolidating the 1000 mile crossing of Northern Ontario, resulting in one rail line east of Winnipeg, been studied?
5.	Have rail services for (a) short to medium distance rail services between major cities (b) commuting trips in and about major cities (c) long-distance trips across the breadth of the country, been upgraded since the Minister of Transport's policy statement on January 29, 1976?
6.	Are any rail services for (a) short to medium distances between major cities (b) commuting trips in and about major cities (c) long distance trips across the breadth of the country presently subsidized and, if so, at what cost to the taxpayer?
7.	In view of the situation in British Columbia, where Northland Navigation Co. was left uncertain as to whether or not its federal subsidy of $3.7 million
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.)
would be continued, has the government considered the formulation of a policy which can be applied uniformally across Canada?
8.	Are any transportation facilities, within Quebec, whose routes are from one point within the Province to another point within the Province, subsidized and, if so (a) which ones (b) what are the names of the companies (c) wh<u is the cost to the taxpayer of the amounts subsidized?
9.	Are any ferry services, presently operating within the Province of (a) Ontario (b) British Columbia, subsidized by the government and, if so (i) what are the names of the companies (ii) what is the cost to the taxpayer of each of the amounts subsidized?
Return tabled.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	How many murders have taken place in federal penitentiaries during the past ten years?
2.	In each case (a) what was the (i) name of the murderer (ii) name of the victim (iii) date (iv) penitentiary (v) circumstance (b) how was each case dealt with (c) what action has been taken to avoid similar incidents?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Have any studies been done or authorized since January 1, 1975, by outside consultants, on noise pollution?
2.	Are any departmental studies presently underway on noise pollution?
Return tabled.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): What are the names of all the Crown corporations?
Return tabled.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 I placed starred question No. 1493 on the Order Paper. It was a very simple question as to whether the government had purchased a Gulfstream 2 executive jet. This is the third time I have raised this matter. Starred questions are supposed to be answered within a reasonable length of time. It is absolutely ridiculous that the government cannot find out whether it purchased a Gulfstream 2, and I think the parliamentary secretary should give me an answer today as to why the government is deliberately delaying answering this starred question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check into why that question has not been answered. I can also tell the hon. member that such an aircraft, which is for calibration testing of flight equipment, was purchased. I think that was revealed in the committee some time ago.


A. Daniel McKenzie: That still does not answer my question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 7, 1977



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day I should indicate that in accordance with our revised procedures for this month the questions to be raised tonight at six p.m. are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-Airports-Charlottetown-Request for progress report on new terminal; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-External Affairs-Maximum claim resident of British Columbia can make against United States in event of oil spill; the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)- Drought-Consultation with provinces on programs for pumping water and drilling wells.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 2, consideration of Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that we agreed by a previous order of the House that upon the calling of the orders of the day, which are upon us now, we would take deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-3, and immediately thereafter of Bill C-12, and that because the divisions were deferred to a specific time, the rule limiting the division bells to 15 minutes would apply. We shall, therefore, proceed now to call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
I presume, without further necessity of calling in the members, it was always the intention that the one set of division bells would be applicable to both deferred divisions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Income Tax INCOME TAX

June 7, 1977


MEASURE TO IMPLEMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CANADA AND CERTAIN COUNTRIES TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Republic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The deferred division is upon motion No. 2. I remind hon. members that a vote on this motion also disposes of motions Nos. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 31.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
J. Michael Forrestall: That in the opinion of this House the government's transportation policies have failed to encourage the growth of strong regional economies, and, in particular, this House condemns the Minister of Transport's Atlantic provinces transportation policy and continues to reject his attitude towards western transportation problems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, albeit we are beginning this debate a little late in the afternoon, perhaps before members representing the Atlantic provinces on the other side of the chamber wander off I could at least set the tone of the opposition motion which is before the chamber. I should have thought that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had caught enough hell in the chamber this afternoon, whether the causes and effects were outside his realm or otherwise to have prompted his hon. friends to pay a little more attention to some of the problems which are brought them from time to time.
I address myself to this motion with the feeling that the attitudes, the policies and programs of the government in this high-priority field of transport are failing desperately to bring
June 7, 1977

about the goal which, as many of us will recall, has been before the House for a number of years. I quote:
To bring about a greater balance in the distribution of people and in the creation and distribution of wealth between and within the regions of this country.
Mr. Speaker, those words were extracted from the primary study upon which the government has for the past four or five years based its transport policy in the various regions. I suggests to you with all the force I can command that the interpretation of policy in this field by the minister and by the government is having a diametrically opposite effect. Government transportation policies, or the lack of them, are seriously hindering efforts to reduce regional economic disparities. Moreover, the feeling of isolation which often exists away from major urban centres in this country is resulting in increased strains upon national unity.
The other day, in Halifax, I felt constrained to say to the transport committee that it had not come to the maritimes to examine the master transportation system alone, but was there testing national unity. My comments this afternoon centre on that statement. It is not only what is going on in the province of Quebec that is testing national unity; it is time we took account of the fact that there are other problems such as economic problems and regional disparity which are testing the national unity of this country. The thrust of my comments is a direct charge which I lay with deep regret against the present minister. Perhaps his former parliamentary secretary would sit down and allow the minister to listen to me; I am sure the people of Atlantic Canada would appreciate it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: This minister told us, back at the last conference with maritime premiers and the Newfoundland minister responsible for transportation, that we were wasting money on transportation in Atlantic Canada. He said, in the coziness of Prince Edward Island, something like this, and I want to quote from a communique issued after a meeting of the Council of Maritime Premiers in Charlottetown, P.E.I., on February 7 and 8, 1977: I quote from page 2 of this release, near the end of the section on transportation:
Mr. Lang, Mr. Morgan and the maritime premiers agreed in principle that improved passenger transportation could best be achieved by providing special assistance for upgrading bus and air services in the region, to be followed by changes to existing rail passenger services.
I will end the quotation there. It has not been taken out of context. That happened in February. About two weeks ago the transport committee, after much fanfare, showed up in Atlantic Canada to hear from the residents of the region about passenger transportation services there. The hearings were begun on a Monday in Halifax. Mr. Speaker, on the Thursday preceding the opening of those hearings, the minister-it was probably not the Minister of Transport; it is probable there was a joint release-told me in response to questions in the House that the report which I have in my hand represents the collective views of himself, his departmental advisers, the Council of Maritime Premiers and the Premier of Newfoundland through the respective transportation ministers or their representatives.
Transportation Policies


An hon. Member:: That is right.


J. Michael Forrestall: The province of Nova Scotia, at least, released to the general public the contents of a study entitled "Atlantic Region Intermodal Passenger Study-Final Report", dated March, 1977. It is interesting to note it was released three or four days before the transport committee commenced its hearings in Halifax by the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation consultants-I should say they are probably insultants-the IBI group in association with ADI Limited, and the Development Planning Association Limited, whoever the devil they are.
That study, Mr. Speaker, finally and irrevocably clarified the position of the minister and the government with respect to the transportation of passengers intraregionally in the maritime provinces and interregionally in Canada. The task of the transport committee was to determine how passengers could best be moved in our part of the country. That was its mandate, to examine the existing modes, including rail, and to report back. My charge is that the government gave to that group, through the Council of Maritime Premiers and Mr. Morgan, or through the so-called federal-provincial committee on Atlantic regional transportation a conclusion which it told them to justify. How can we in Atlantic Canada sit idly by and watch not only the work of the transport committee being thwarted by such action, but also the work of the Royal Commission on Transportation being carried out on behalf of the people of Canada by Dr. Sullivan of Newfoundland? The work of this commission has been prejudged, the work of the railway transport committee on passenger services has been prejudged, and the work of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was prejudged before leaving Ottawa to spend last week in the Atlantic region. These were prejudged because the Minister of Transport used his vast command to suck in poor little fellows like us in the Atlantic provinces. That is a disgusting word and I do not like it, but I like even less the fact that I believe I was sucked in by the minister, the government and its advisers. They knew exactly what they wanted and then hired some consultants to ratify it and justify it.
Some of the conclusions supporting the position of the Minister of Transport are so outdated, inadequate, and totally unacceptable that they have already raised the ire and the resentment of hundreds and hundreds of the maritimes. They have also raised the ire of organized groups in the maritimes who say the figures and the data being used are inaccurate.
On May 25, as I indicated earlier, the minister said in response to a planted question from the other side-and we are used to that-that we were going to get something in the order of $125 million in the Atlantic provinces to straighten out our transportation mess.


An hon. Member:: Big deal!


J. Michael Forrestall: Big deal is right. No further evidence is required by members of this Chamber on the question of the
6396

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
movement of people in the Atlantic provinces. Such movement in and out of the Atlantic provinces was prejudged and predirected by the Minister of Transport. He offered us $125 million-$100 million to upgrade our roadbeds, $20 million to upgrade our buses, and $4 million to upgrade our air services. The council of maritime premiers or the Atlantic provinces regional transportation committee has asked the government for $1 billion and not $100 million. They feel they need that over the next eight or ten years to achieve what the Minister of Transport has suggested is going to be achieved in the next three or four years.
It is going to cost $260 million to fix up the potholes in the TransCanada Highway from St. John's to Port aux Basques. Are we to wait ten years, 20 years, or 30 years to have that done? What do they think we are in the Atlantic provinces? Where does Canada begin? If someone in St. John's wants to take a train ride from one end of this country to the other, he cannot. He has to take a bus. The minister has had his way for the first 1,800 miles, lopping off rail service. He has to go by bus all the way to Montreal, get off the bus there and get on a train.
I see the minister is indicating no. The report recommends eliminating all of that train service which will save $30 million a year. He wants to give us $100 million a year and save $9 million, $10 million or $12 million by eliminating the run between Halifax and Sydney on the Valley highway, the Saint John River valley train, the train through western New Brunswick, through Maine and through Sherbrooke on into Montreal. Where is that money going? Will that be new money coming into the Atlantic region? The thrust of what I am saying is that this is neither reasonable nor acceptable as an alternative.
The only people who will be travelling by air in ten years time will be businessmen and probably members of parliament. I hope the people of this country have sense enough to stay away from that expensive mode of transportation. They should use the train, or hitchhike. We will not be able to afford to drive our cars in ten years, if what we are being told is true. We will not have the energy. If the energy is there in terms of gas and oil, we will not be able to afford to use it. It will be too expensive for the average person.
Faced with this, what are we doing? We are abandoning our capacity to haul passengers by rail and substituting it with buses. Of course we need good bus service. I have never heard it said that we do not have good bus service. I have never heard it said by anybody until we were told so by a group of IBIs and ADIs or whoever they are. I wonder what they got paid. Any good research assistant of any member of the House of Commons could have read that in 30 minutes and been a lot more accurate in the writing of it. For the minister to try to fob that off as a rationalization and a justification for a position the government has adopted with respect to how people in the Atlantic provinces are going to travel, is a sad mistake. It will not be accepted.
I have been railing here for the past few minutes, but in conclusion I would like to refer to the Atlantic Region Inter-

Modal Passenger Study on which the minister's program is based. It fails to compare costing for rail on the same basis as that for air and road. It ignores the extremely expensive infrastructure such as highways and airports which are required for the latter two modes of transportation. It assumes that present rail patrons will shift to buses once trains are removed. No evidence for such an assumption exists. Indeed experience indicates that such passengers will turn to energy wasteful automobiles or airplanes. The claim that buses are not more energy efficient than trains may be true in certain instances. For example, the government drives people away from trains, thus forcing the railways to operate trains with a limited number of passengers on them.
The noted environmental scientist, Barry Commoner, makes a strong case for a return to the rails in his most recent book, "The Poverty of Power". I commend it to the minister and some of the members opposite. He points out that the train is by far the most efficient energy user-630 passenger miles per million BTUs compared with 340 for buses, 120 for airplanes and 110 for private autos. More important, the train is the only mode of transportation, apart from small electric cars, that lends itself to electrification for the mass movement of people.
The report makes no reference to factors in which the rail mode excels, namely, comfort, security, safety, and ease of convenience for those who are aged or crippled, and for the youth of our country. It treats the improvement of rail service as excluding improvements to other modes, creating a false impression that better air and bus service are dependent upon rail cutbacks. The study's answer to more efficient inter-modal transportation seems to be to drop one of the modes.
[DOT] (mo)
Finally, it asserts that rail ridership continues to decline. In fact this trend has reversed quite decisively, based on the most recent figures available to us. I commend to members a reading of the brief presented by Canadian National Railways to the railway transport committee in Halifax about ten days or two weeks ago.
I have dealt with the savings that allegedly we are going to make out of moving away from rail to bus. I have dealt with the fact that this is not new money. I would ask the minister rhetorically what happens to the lost revenue and to the lost taxes paid by the hundreds of employees who will be thrown out of a job as a result of this move. How will this money be replaced by dollars and cents already in place in our community? We want answers to some of these questions.
There is a ground swell of resentment toward the posture adopted, accidentally or otherwise, by the government. I am not suggesting the minister had control over the timing of the appearance of the railway transport committee in the maritime region, but I am suggesting it is unacceptable to us to send such a distinguished group of commissioners as the railway transport committee to the Atlantic region to examine passenger travel in the area and, at the same time, announce a $125 million program which is designed to move away from rail
June 7, 1977

transport. In any event, even if it is not designed to do that, the money to pay for the program will come from what the minister refers to as the elimination of inefficient subsidies.
1 suggest this is a serious charge. I am surprised that the minister permitted his advisers to put him in this position. As I say, there is a ground well of resentment over this policy which is reflected in letters which come into my office every day and which come, I am sure, into the office of every Atlantic member of parliament. Moreover, I feel very strongly that this resentment is now just starting to grow. Mr. Mingo, the distinguished chairman of the Halifax-Dartmouth port commission, put it this way the other day. He said that, contrary to the view of many in Canada, we in Atlantic Canada do not enjoy overwhelming subsidies. The port of Halifax, for example, enjoys only the subsidy of the "at and east'' rates. We pay for everything else ourselves, apart from a small deficit resulting from the operation of the port.
To cut us out of passenger services will be doing not only the Atlantic provinces but Canadians in the 1980's a disservice. If what we are led to believe is about to come to pass, we will not have sufficient energy supplies in the maritimes. The energy that we do have will price transportation-vehicles, cars, buses, airplanes-beyond the means of the average Canadian. For example, we know that Air Canada is programming itself to carry no one but businessmen after 1982 or 1983, apart from a handful of jet setters who can afford to fly in any event. Certainly Air Canada will not be carrying, Mr. Speaker, my mother, your grandmother, your niece, uncle or children from Halifax to Regina, from Regina to Saskatoon, or from British Columbia back to Ontario for a vacation, because they will be unable to afford the fare. We are told costs are increasing too rapidly.
Why at this point in time are we downgrading rail travel as a means of moving passengers from one part of Canada to another? More important, are we doing it because the minister has directed that this be done? Why has he undermined the work of the railway transport committee? Why has he undermined the work presently being commenced by Dr. Sullivan in Newfoundland? Why is he so insistent, for the sake of $8 million to $12 million a year, on getting us out of the one mode of moving passengers-rail-on which, according to every shred of evidence of in front of us, we will have to rely in the early 1980's and certainly by the mid-1980's?
I do not understand, and the people" of Atlantic Canada do not understand why we are cutting back when we should be attempting to improve and to upgrade our railways. We should be getting into electrification. We have to spend millions and millions of dollars on roadbed improvement, on continuing the welded rail concept. We need new switching, new signalling services. We must have better scheduling. Above all, we must have new rolling stock. If we undertake these improvements, passengers will come back to rail. Otherwise they will not move from rail to bus; they will move from rail to car, the most inefficient method of moving people around the country.
If my premise is wrong and we do have the energy to last till God only knows when-certainly to beyond our capacity to see
Transportation Policies
into the future-then I wish somebody over on that side would stand up and say so. They have not done so. Instead, they confirm that we will be paying anywhere from double to triple the present cost of imported oil within the next six to eight years. This is why I cannot understand and, more important, why no one in the Atlantic provinces can understand how the minister can take such a stubborn position, how he can prejudge the work of the railway transport committee, the work of Dr. Sullivan, not to mention the work of the standing committee of this House which hopefully will report its findings regarding Atlantic Canada in the not too distant future.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the importance of this debate and of other matters that have occurred to me, I wonder whether the House would agree to call it six o'clock so we can resume at eight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it so agreed?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the whip has just reminded me that we are having the late show at six, and there may be some difficulty in members reaching here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is here but the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is not.


Walter David Baker: We have lost a considerable amount of parliamentary time on an opposition day by votes and other things. There are still ten minutes till six and I think we should proceed. Frankly, if you are asking is there unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I will not give it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There not being unanimous consent, I recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that my good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), would have continued until six, because we would have given him the time had he wanted it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are a big sport now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sure all hon. members would agree that they hate to have to start a speech and then resume two hours later. That is why I asked for unanimous consent; I am sorry 1 was not able to get it.
I want to add to and reinforce some of the remarks made by my hon. friend who just spoke. I want to commence by saying that the motion he has on the order paper certainly meets with our approval and is similar to one which has been moved by opposition parties on numerous occasions over the nine years 1 have been here.
I want to mention specifically some items which I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will deal with when he rises in his place. I hope also that he will tell the House that he is prepared, if not to change his mind completely, at least to
80018-3'/2

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
amend to some degree his previous hard-nosed and stubborn view.
We all depend on transportation, whether directly for free movement or indirectly for employment oportunities in our regions of the country. In fact transportation is our lifeline, the same as our telephone systems, hydro, water and roads. I submit that it must be treated as a public utility, an essential public service which everyone has to use, both directly and indirectly. When the government insists on maintaining the philosophy of the 1890's about commercial viability and competition in transportation, even in the face of some of its own members who say that competition does not work in transportation, then surely in the face of all the evidence we have had and in face of the views that have been expressed to members of the House individually, to committees of the House and to the Canadian Transport Commission, it is time for the government to make a fundamental change in the direction of the policy it has followed over the last number of years.
We cannot have equity and fairness in transportation if we adopt the principle of commercial viability and competition. The following has been stated by the Economic Council of Canada:
In Canada, great distances and a small population unevenly distributed among the various regions render markets small and fragmented. The geography of the nation reinforces this. Canadians have traditionally regarded transport policy as a major vehicle to off-set such tendencies and to foster economic growth.
While the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) exhorts all Canadians to conserve energy, to turn off the lights, and to be economical in the use of hot water to the point of almost inviting your neighbour to share your bath, the Minister of Transport and the government continue to bring about changes in our transportation system which result in a most inefficient and wasteful use of energy, which are the worst in terms of pollution, land use, safety, comfort, and convenience. In the face of all that, the government has consistently over the years brought about changes in the transportation policy that decrease the amount and quality of service which should be available to Canadians no matter where they live.
The minister and the government continue to advocate policies and legislation which will carry on what has been going on in this country for many decades. We will discriminate against people and goods because of where they happen to be or to live. We will fail to take into account our geography, our climate, where our people live, and where markets are available to us.
While there has been a great debate in most of Canada about the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates, the same thing applies to the "at and east" freight rates. They are not a misused subsidy-if I can borrow a phrase from the minister's remarks on a previous occasion-they are designed to place our country in a reasonably equitable or competitive position with our competitors in other parts of the world. The at and east freight rates allow Canadian grain producers, millers at Georgian Bay, the St. Lawrence Seaway and Atlantic coast ports, to handle grain, and mill wheat and flour in a reason-

ably competitive position with western Europe, the United States, Australia and Argentina, all of whom heavily subsidize, whether it be their ports, their railways or their grain prices. That is all they are intended to do. They are not a handout to farmers, a bailing out of some ports, some grain terminals or some flour mills. They take into account our geography, and they allow Canadian primary producers to be in a reasonably equitable and competitive position with other countries in the world.
In the Atlantic provinces the shifting of emphasis from rail, to the neglect of some ports, to super highways and air transportation, contributes to the misuse of energy and the misallocation of funds for transportation. When the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was in Atlantic Canada last week we heard about transportation of potatoes in the Atlantic provinces. We heard the same complaint that we have heard from potato growers ever since I came to this parliament, that there are not enough refrigerator cars and that it makes sense to ship potatoes by rail but the railroads do not have many if any refrigerator cars to move the potatoes. That is what the potato growers told the committee. They also told us that truckers are not interested in moving potatoes if it means their trucks have to sit on the docks for a week, for ten days or two weeks, waiting for a ship to arrive. The truckers told us that 200 or 300 miles was too short a distance over which to haul potatoes.
Port officials and people connected with the port of Halifax told us that storage facilities for potatoes in Halifax are inadequate. But what does the minister do? He arranges for money to be allocated to highways and airports. It will not be of much use to the potato industry in New Brunswick and P.E.I.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, members of the House will not be surprised that I am bringing forward yet again the question of the provision of a modern, up to date airport at Charlottetown. I brought up the subject most recently on May 24 of this year, and on January 31 and December 17, 1976. Hansard will indicate frequent inquiries over many years to many ministers.
While I would not say that the airport question is the most important one facing our province, it nevertheless has the
June 7, 1977

highest priority and urgency and deserves and requires immediate action.
The basic problem is that the Department of Transport has not kept pace with the airlines serving our province. Eastern Provincial Airways, a most estimable firm, brought us into the jet age by providing direct, efficient service to Montreal. Later Air Canada, through its flights 654 and 655, linked Toronto and Ottawa to the cradle of Confederation. But while the airlines were in the jet age, the airport stayed in the prop age. The terminal is far too small, there are too few seats, there is a deficiency in many of the basic amenities which a modern airport requires.
Like its sister Atlantic provinces P.E.I. would prefer to strengthen its own economy rather than depend on what are sometimes unjustly, wrongly, and outrageously called handouts from Ottawa.
One of the logical and most promising areas of self help is in the realm of tourism. But if we cannot get the people into the province with a modicum of comfort and convenience, we cannot aid the expansion of the tourist industry.
Prince Edward Islanders are friendly people and we give a warm welcome to tourists who usually number about ten times our own population. But amiable though we may be, we do not care for standing on one another's insteps at the Charlottetown airport. On previous occasions I have indicated the number of chairs in the waiting room and compared this miniscule number to the seating capacity of any one of the planes serving the airport. I will not repeat that mathematical exercise today.
Since posting this question for adjournment proceedings- indeed, just a short while ago-I received a letter from the minister which I regard as good news indeed, and I am sure he will not mind my reading it.
In reply to the question you raised in the House on Tuesday, May 24, I am pleased to report that preliminary design work of the new ATB at Charlottetown has now been completed. During this stage, there has been continued close consultation and co-operation between provincial and Transport Canada officials, and the resultant design incorporates modern passenger processing facilities in an aesthetically attractive setting.
Final agreement with all airport users on cost recovery, consistent with Transport Canada policy, is expected to be reached in the next few weeks, and is the one outstanding pre-requisite before Treasury Board approval-in-principle for the development program is requested.
I repeat that that is good news indeed. Charitable and forgiving as I am, I will omit today my usual references to delays and procrastination, and congratulate the minister for his report of progress. I am delighted that a design combining aesthetic and efficient features has been arrived at. If no one else has a kind word today for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), I do not mind breaking the train of thought in this Chamber and speaking in candor and honesty and saying that in this regard he has done a fine job. I commend him for it. I can only say to the minister, through his parliamentary secretary or whoever replies to me, press on with dispatch. We islanders deserve action, not because we are virtuous-which of course we are-but because we have waited a long time. A
Adjournment Debate
new, adequate airport at Charlottetown will be a major contribution to the transport element in Atlantic Canada.
If I am the only one to say so in this Chamber today, I say that at least to me this is a great deal. I say "thank you" to the minister, and God speed in his final act to give us what we need so badly.
[ Translation]


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is very gratifying to hear just before dinner such encouraging words from the hon. member. I am sure the minister will be happy, after all that has been said today, to find a member of the opposition who spoke so kindly about him, indeed, much more kindly than some of his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy), for the information of the hon. member I should like to read the answer given by the department.

Mr. Speaker, the minister wrote to the hon. member on this subject as recently as late last week, but I would like to provide some amplification at this time.
Resulting from continuing and amicable discussions between the premier of Prince Edward Island, some of his cabinet colleagues and senior provincial officials with Transport Canada officials there is now general agreement on terminal design and on the balance of the program to upgrade facilities at Charlottetown. As a result of the close consultation and co-operation, we have achieved a design which incorporates modern and efficient passenger processing facilities in an aesthetically attractive setting.
Final agreement with all airport users on cost recovery, consistent with Transport Canada policy, is expected to be reached in the next few weeks. In the meantime discussions are continuing in a close and co-operative way, and we are not unhappy with the manner in which plans are progressing.
Transport Canada will shortly be seeking approval for the extensive program, to be accomplished over a period of the next five years. The new air terminal building is expected to be the first of several projects to be completed within the next couple of years.
We all join the hon. member opposite in eagerly anticipating the day when we can fly into what will most certainly be a welcome addition to the city of Charlottetown.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-MAXIMUM CLAIM RESIDENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA CAN MAKE AGAINST UNITED STATES IN EVENT OF OIL SPILL
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, this matter arises as a result of a question that was asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) on June 2 last. The question was in two parts, the first dealing with the maximum amount of money that British Columbia residents would be able to claim under the law against the United States government in the event of an oil spill. The

June 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
question was prompted by the decision of the Kitimat consortium to withdraw their application for a pipeline at Kitimat thereby leaving the waters of British Columbia at a much higher risk because of the expected increase in the volume of crude oil that would be carried from Alaska.
We have known for a long time that the Aleskya line will have a surplus; we have known for a long time that the United States will have to find a way fo bringing that surplus to market; we have known for a long time, in fact since the days of David Anderson, who was a Liberal member of this House from Victoria back in 1968, that the waters of British Columbia would be placed at very substantial risk as a result of this project. The warning of the risk has always been there and has always been high. Yet here we are today, some eight years later, debating exactly the same thing that the Liberal member, David Anderson, debated in this House such a long time ago. That is a condemnation of the government for failing to take a co-ordinated stand in regard to the use of the waters of British Columbia, and secondly, for acting as a dog in the manger and not providing any feasible alternative for the Americans to avoid the certainty of pollution. JVhen I say the certainty of pollution that is what I mean.
In spite of all the new radar systems that are available, in spite of the new Loran system, in spite of the $16 million that the government is presently spending in terms of water transport regulation in those waters, when a 50-mile an hour gale hits the Georgia Straits and a super tanker loses power, there will be a massive oil spill in spite of all the regulations. I am willing to concede that the United States has now developed very strict regulations for the use of its tankers. We are going to have the certainty of an oil spill in those straits, however, and our government will stand condemned when that occurs because it has had enough lead time year after year to have presented a positive proposal for carrying that oil to market.
I stress that the minister has had an opportunity to examine the whole question and I hope we will receive a specific answer on what the limits to claim are for British Columbia residents. It is not as though there were no feasible alternatives to carrying the U.S. oil to market without using the waters adjacent to British Columbia. A proposal has been made in this House by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) that Gray's Harbour should be developed as a port on the Pacific so that none of the interior waters need be used by tankers. That proposal was worthy of investigation by the government, but it did not see fit to do so.
We have the use of the port of Los Angeles to take the surplus Aleskya oil but the reason the United States is not using that port is that environmental groups in Los Angeles have more clout than our people, and have impressed the United States government about the environmental sensitivity of those waters. That is one of the reasons why they will not carry that oil to United States ports.
The pipeline for Alaskan oil should have been a feasible project, but the answer the minister gave me was that no application has been made to the National Energy Board. Surely the government can do more than that do see that we
[Mr. Leggatt.J
do not suffer massive oil pollution in British Columbia. Surely some leadership should be shown by the government.
Last but not least, the British Columbia government made a proposal for transporting Alaskan oil by rail. That proposal is still feasible. The original proposal was for taking oil from Prudhoe Bay, but the present proposal to take oil from Fairbanks is still feasible. You know, pipelines suck energy from one place but put nothing back for the residents. If we had built a pipeline on the prairies to carry wheat in John A. Macdonald's days, few people would now be living on the prairies. Therefore the question of the pipeline itself must be considered seriously.
The rail proposal was made back in 1973 and deserves serious study. Certainly we should have studied the proposals for alternate routes made by David Anderson and others in this House; we should have encouraged the Americans to consider them. Putting it simply, we should have shown leadership for developing with the United States a joint oil port. We may need it if we must bring oil across the Pacific, for one day we ourselves may run short of western oil. Surely the government could have sat down with its counterparts and said, "This interior channel route is entirely unacceptable to British Columbia. What can we do together to solve difficulties concerning the Juan de Fuca Islands, the American islands at risk, and our own islands?" We did not do that. We sat idly by and now are presented with a fait accompli in British Columbia. The federal government stands condemned for letting down the citizens of British Columbia and for not providing for the transport of Alaskan oil away from our waters.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the first question raised by the hon. member concerns the claims that Canadian residents can make against the United States in the event of an oil spill.
Under the U.S. Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, a fund of $100 million has been established for payment of claims for damages resulting from discharges of oil from these tankers, on a basis of strict liability without regard to fault. These remedies are expressly made available to residents of Canada.
A new bill has recently been introduced in the U.S. Congress which would supersede the liability and compensation provisions of the TAPA Act. This bill, the Comprehensive Oil Pollution Liability and Compensation Act, provides for an increased liability fund of $200 million, and some of the concerns expressed earlier by Canada have been taken into account in the drafting of the new legislation. Other concerns are under discussion between Canada and the U.S.A. while the draft legislation is under consideration by Congress.
The second question concerned negotiations with the United States on alternatives to the use of Cherry Point by oil tankers. A variety of port alternatives has been studied and preliminary conclusions reached by Canadian authorities. These studies
June 7, 1977

indicate that there are no sheltered harbours or anchorages between California and the Strait of Juan de Fuca which could be practically developed as terminals for tankers above 80,000 tons. Offshore facilities such as buoys appear to be ruled out by the difficult climate and ocean conditions in the area. These conclusions unfortunately appear to rule out Gray's Harbour and other similar options.
It is our understanding the SOHIO Long Beach proposal would supply only a few of the easternmost U.S. Northern Tier refineries with the crude oil they require. The project cannot, therefore, be viewed as a satisfactory full alternative to proposed northern routes.
Among the Puget Sound options, we have concluded that Port Angeles, although not strictly satisfactory from the Canadian point of view, would be a less hazardous location than Cherry Point for a major terminal. This conclusion is know to the United States government.


DROUGHT-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON PROGRAMS FOR PUMPING WATER AND DRILLING WELLS
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question raised during this adjournment debate relates to the question I raised on May 5 as reported in Hansard on pages 5304 and 5305, when I dealt with the drought in southern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan. In particular I raised the matter of surface water for livestock, and of domestic water requirements of rural communities and small towns in that area. I want to give the House a brief update, if I may call it that, on the western drought situation.
Over the past couple of weeks the news media and many individuals, not only in eastern or central Canada, but in parts of western Canada, have assumed that the drought is over. That is ridiculous. It is true we have had some generous rains. They have brought a happy ending to last month's drought in the west, but not across the whole drought area. I speak of that area taking a line from west of Bassano, Alberta, running into the foothills of the mountains and cutting across to Swift Current, Saskatchewan. South of that line we still have very serious drought conditions.
Most of this area has had less than two inches of rain, and some less than one inch. I live right in the centre of this area. What rain we have had has come in small local showers. There was no deeper suboil moisture to connect with these small, scanty rainfalls.
A week ago yesterday I flew from Calgary to Medicine Hat by Time Air in a light plane at low elevation. Over the next two days I drove over all of my range along the Alberta-Sas-katchewan border and northeast of Medicine Hat. That is a considerable area, covering not only my own range but a good many of my neighbours.
It is true that the limited rainfall did start our grass, but only start it. That was about three weeks ago. That grass has now stopped growing. It has that pasty yellowish-green colour that I know so well that precedes the stage of drought when the leaves start shrivelling up from lack of moisture.
Adjournment Debate
Our surface water situation continues to get slowly but definitely worse day by day, and this will continue throughout the summer. There was no rain run-off to help the water situation.
Many cattle producers are trucking water for their stock. Some have been doing this for up to two months. These conditions cover a large area across southern Alberta down to the American border and into southwestern Saskatchewan. I emphasize that it is very, very serious. The drought continues unabated in this area.
Following the statement in the House on May 6 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the day after I raised this question, it was given good press coverage in the west. However, there have been few details, if any, since, especially details with regard to the well drilling and digging program and water pumping, both from wells and rivers.
The PFRA field office in Medicine Hat has had little, if any, policy instruction. The Alberta provincial assistance program has been much better publicized. Their pumps and pipelines are now available for action.
During my response to the minister's statement in this House I suggested that the minister give more emphasis to and have more publicity on this program and the need for open, regular public information on the total drought picture. There has been very little, if any, even after his Regina meeting when he met with his special action group-only a brief statement that the meeting was held. There has not been any substantial information. This suggests that the minister does not have anything to report. Either that or he feels that the drought is over. Surely he is better informed than that.
I urge the minister to authorize and indeed speed up the PFRA well program and the pumping program. He should allow special leeway for extra deep wells or wells which are likely to cost extra capital amounts, and include pumping. 1 am not certain, but I believe my suggestion with regard to the eligibility of dug or bored wells has been accepted. If that is the case I am most grateful and I thank the minister and his staff.
I have another serious suggestion, one which I hope will receive the same attention. The limitation of PFRA assistance to only one project a year has been relaxed, and two projects are now eligible. This is not enough. This is the time, under drought conditions, to carry out water conservation projects. It is time to get these things done, and the limitation to which I have referred should be removed completely so as to encourage more and more water storage and conservation projects. No cattle producers or grain farmers could possibly take advantage of such a special policy-the high cost of dirt moving will take care of that.
Will PFRA bring about some special water projects in the Suffield block on both sides of the river? Requests have been made for such assistance to include wells and river pumping up and over substantial river banks and distances. I hope serious attention will be given to this, soon.

June 7, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Will my request for special pasture allotment for sheep in the Suffield area be given consideration? Finally, I want to comment on the fact that the new director of PFRA was announced a week or so ago as being Dr. Harry Hill. I welcome his appointment. I understand he has impressive credentials. I do not know this gentleman very well but I am told he is not to take over until September 1. 1 suggest to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary that this is not early enough. He should be there now.


Mr.   Iren@: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will understand that it will not be possible for me to answer many of the points he has raised. They are well taken, especially the one about the publicity given to the federal program which we have worked out with the western provinces. I will bring the other points the hon. member has raised to the attention of the minister.
The recent rains in the prairie provinces have done much to alleviate water and feed supply shortages in the west resulting from drought conditions. However, certain areas still requiring rain and water supplies remain a major concern.
After a recent meeting in Regina with the provincial ministers concerning the drought situation, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) had received Treasury Board authority to enter into 50-50 cost-sharing agreements with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for two new assistance programs for rural communities and for farmers to assist them in drilling deep wells. These programs are in effect from April 1, 1977, to March 31, 1978. The total federal contribution could amount to some $2.7 million, with $1.2 million allotted to community wells and $1.5 million for the farm wells program. Assistance is availale to the three prairie provinces to finance deep wells and associated water pipelines for rural communities with a maximum federal contribution of $15,000 for each project.
The farm wells program is an extension of the existing PFRA program. It offers farmers a special incentive of up to $950 for drilling deep wells to a maximum of 440 feet. Wells, dugouts and stock watering dams have been eligible for up to $550 each, and irrigation schemes for up to $600. The maximum level of federal assistance is now $1,500. Both programs are to be administered by the PFRA administration and the Regina task force is working with the three prairie provinces to formalize agreements for the water supply program.
It is also a fact that in certain parts of the prairies no deep water is available and that the deep well assistance programs would not be suitable. Bored or dug wells are therefore to be included in the well-drilling assistance programs.
These water supply programs should provide a longer term solution to the prairie water supply problem. The pasture and winter feed supply situation is being monitored by the Regina task force, and farmers are being encouraged to produce feed from alternative sources, such as oats.
(Mr. Hargrave.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 6.30 o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6.28 p.m. 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. Forrestall:
That in the opinion of this House the government's transportation policies have failed to encourage the growth of strong regional economies, and, in particular, this House condemns the Minister of Transport's Atlantic provinces transportation policy and continues to reject his attitude towards western transportation problems.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad at least 20 members have shown up by 11 minutes after eight, but I was hoping that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) would be here since the debate is about transportation. I was also hoping that the mover of the motion in the official opposition would be here since it is his motion.
I want to resume the comments 1 was making when some hon. members gratefully called it six o'clock so I could not speak any longer. I was mentioning the potato growers in the Atlantic provinces whose problems are not new.
I can remember asking questions in the House in the fall of 1968 and the spring of 1969 about refrigerator cars and storage capacity for potato growers at the ports of Saint John and Halifax, so there is nothing new about the problem. The trouble is that we still have old line parties in the government and in the official opposition.
What I want to say is that in the port of Halifax one of the things that was presented to us most clearly, when we were there with the transport committee, from various and sundry users and operators of the port, was the desperate need for a fast move on the extension of the container facilities at the port of Halifax. We were told that if it does not happen fairly soon, the port of New York will steal some of the business which should rightly be ours. When the transport committee
June 7, 1977

was in the Atlantic provinces last week, we were told that this was to the detriment of the port of Saint John or anywhere else in the Atlantic provinces. I was hoping that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) would have mentioned that in his remarks earlier this afternoon. No doubt some of his colleagues will speak late this evening to expand on that.
I want to repeat my contention which I have held over a number of years, particularly since the Minister of Transport was appointed after having been minister of justice and also in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, that in every year since those desperate days every move he has made was designed to put the users of transportation in this country in a position where they were no better off and, more likely, worse off than they had been. His proposals for changes in the Transportation Act return us to the 1890's. I have heard little objection to that from the official opposition who also believe in competition, commercial viability and profitability in transportation, even though governments of different political stripes from the extreme left to the extreme right, and of every stripe in between, in at least two dozen other countries in the world have thrown out those concepts two or three decades ago.
Our country must recognize our geography and our climate and provide a system of equalized or subsidized freight rates. It must make a deliberate decision that people and goods will move in the most efficient way, whether it be on the short haul, medium haul, or long haul.
The Atlantic Provinces Truckers' Association confirmed what I have long believed, namely, that the hauling of bulk heavy commodities for anything over 200 miles was wasteful and inefficient. The railroads admit that they cannot do a better job with heavy bulk commodities because they cannot bear the capital costs of our rights of way, trackage and roadbed and recover the costs from the users. There is nothing new about that. The fact of the matter is that every mode of transportation since before Confederation has been subsidized and has required investment from the public purse at the municipal, provincial and federal level. It has always been thus.
If we are not prepared to return to the toll roads of the early 1800's or late 1700's, to return to a system where only the rich can travel or only those who can afford the cost of moving goods and services can be in business, then surely the government and the minister must get away from the nineteeth century concepts on which they are trying to operate. In fact some members of the official opposition have faced up to this. Some remarks of their spokesmen today who quoted Transport 2,000 and the submission made to the Committee on Transport and Communications in the Atlantic provinces in recent weeks indicate that there might be some members in the official opposition who are prepared to forget about commercial viability and profitability in transportation.
The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East spoke about the four Atlantic premiers being sucked in, and he did not like that phrase. I called it a con job. The four Atlantic premiers were either conned or they gave away the store in giving up
Transportation Policies
some statutory rate provisions in the Maritime Freight Rates Act or the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act in order to get $100 million for roads and $25 million for airports. That flies in the face of energy conservation, of the most economical and efficient use of transportation. They were conned rather than sucked in. I find it passing strange how anxious those four Atlantic premiers or their representatives were to accept this package from the Minister of Transport.
I submit that the people in the Atlantic provinces have been betrayed again. A benefit they had had for many years they gave away, for what? There is some kind of biblical phrase that perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows better, which refers to a mess of pottage. That would apply to these statutory rate provisions which the maritime premiers gave up. Now it lies in the hands of the Minister of Transport to select the commodities which might or might not receive the benefits that they would otherwise receive under the statutory provisions regarding freight transportation.
The Minister of Transport, in collusion with two Liberal and two Tory premiers in eastern Canada, has betrayed the people again, and will continue the discrimination against people and products because of where they happen to live or be located. There will be no change. When you put $100 million into some more highways in the Atlantic provinces, which are relatively short compared to those in northern Ontario and western Canada, you will increase the use of energy and the cost of transportation, most of which will be borne by the provincial and municipal governments. That is why I say that if the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East thinks he has been sucked in-I chose the word conned-the fact is that the Atlantic premiers gave away the store. They have been party to a perpetuation of a transportation system operated on principles that have been shown to be not some socialist dogma but that have been shown to be inadequate, insufficient, and incorrect in dozens of other countries.
The minister is accused in a recent publication-which I will not refer to because I might be out of order-as a man who has never admitted he was wrong on anything. I do not know if he would ever admit he is wrong on the time of day even if his watch were out. It is time the Minister of Transport just once admitted that commercial viability and competition in the major modes of transportation not only do not work but also perpetuate discrimination against people in the Atlantic region, on the prairies, and in the far north. There is no way a federal government or any province can justify, for example, a dozen eggs costing $4 on an Arctic island. That is unfair and unjust. It is unfair that it costs $1.80 for two quarts of milk in Yellowknife. Surely on essential things which everyone has to have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
8001 8-4

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I find it strange that the national government and the governments of ten provinces and two territories-so that includes all the political parties-are able to equalize the price of a bottle of whiskey. I am known as a fellow who enjoys the odd drink once a month.
The price of a bottle of whiskey at Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet and anywhere in Newfoundland, British Columbia or any other province is equalized, but when it comes to a quart of milk, a head of lettuce, a pound of tomatoes, a bag of flour, a tank of propane fuel, or a tank of heating oil, the principle of the user shall pay applies. My party and I contend that that is an indecent way to treat people in this country, and the governments of this country, of every province, or every territory, and in particular the Minister of Transport, are guilty of allowing this to continue. A system of equalized and/or subsidized freight rates which allows people a natural advantage in the production of agricultural products or mineral products whereby these products can be processed where they are found is just, decent, and fair.
Why is rapeseed processed in Toronto or Montreal? Not a bushel of it is grown there. Why can people not have fresh milk, fruit and vegetables in Labrador, in the Northwest Territories or in rural Saskatchewan for the same prices they can have them in downtown Regina or Toronto? The minister, his government and the official opposition should face up to the reality that no matter where you go in this world, competition in transportation does not work.
We should treat people fairly no matter where they live. If we are all part of this confederation, we should not charge $4 for a dozen eggs in northern Canada or $1.80 for two quarts of milk in Yellowknife. If we cannot do better under this kind of system, we should eliminate competition and profitability in transportation.


Mr. Breau:: Who is going to pay for it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The nation as a whole should share this cost. If hon. members do not mind this expression, it is called co-operation. It is even called co-operative federalism, or a co-operative commonwealth.
[ Translation]


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion this evening dealing with a very important matter. Indeed, there are not many issues in Canada which give rise to so much emotion and so many political debates as transportation. I read once a paper referring to some research made on the political interventions of members from the Atlantic area since the beginning of Confederation up to 1971 which had shown that transportation was the matter more often discussed and dealt with by the members from the Atlantic area. Of course, in a country as big as Canada, it is normal that transportation would be constantly discussed.
I find it funny when I listen to hon. members such as the member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), who were shocked because a dozen eggs and a quart of milk are appar-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
ently very costly in the north. Those people do not mention who should pay for transportation costs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All of us, you dummy!


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member could use expressions that are a bit more appropriate to Parliament than the ridiculous statement he has just made. I am simply asking who should pay for all those things. If I understand him correctly, he says that everyone should pay. I say that this is idealistic and that it is very well to suggest we should as much as possible in our society absorb all costs, taxes, transportation costs, the cost of living and the cost of basic necessities on the basis of the ability to pay.
However, Mr. Speaker, this distorts reality because, for instance, someone who settles in northern Canada does not have an income that is set on the basis of equality. His income is based on the market and if a worker in northern Canada has a recognized trade, he receives a higher income and receives certain benefits. It is quite unrealistic in my opinion to think that in a country like Canada it would be possible to equalize our transportation rates for products going to the north, for instance. I say this is an example of not very realistic interventions when I think of the contribution made this afternoon by the hon. member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). I read with interest his statement before the Railway Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission when it was sitting in Halifax, and I read with interest the comments made in Moncton before this committee, which will be sitting in my constituency tomorrow.
It is quite ironical to see that those newspaper commentators and editorialists keep claiming that there is too much input on the part of the government in the economy and that this government should reduce its spendings. Hon. members opposite keep telling us that the government should reduce the number of instances when it takes action in economic matters. Those very same people are now telling us that railway passenger services between Halifax and Montreal should be maintained though they are obviously running at a deficit.
Actually, I have seen figures released no longer than six months ago showing that for each passenger travelling on the train from Halifax to Montreal, the Canadian taxpayer, through the federal treasury, has to pay some $40 on top of the price of the ticket. Mr. Speaker, these are the very same people who claim that railway passenger services should be developed despite the prevailing situation. In my opinion, this amounts to promoting a policy that would be utterly unrealistic and lacking any common sense. It is obviously necessary to maintain a railway service stretching between Halifax and Montreal and probably from Montreal to Vancouver. However, it should not be necessary to maintain two or three itineraries, as together they are not profitable. 1 think it is quite unreasonable to talk about stepping up operations in this field while it has been clearly demonstrated that this would not be profitable. I suggest it is right to say that the government should maintain a railway service but stating that this service
June 7, 1977

should be operated on a greater scale seems to me a policy that shows a lack of realism on the part of its proponents.
I should like to deal briefly with one aspect of transportation that touches my constituency in northern New Brunswick, and suggest to the minister that he consider the possibility of a local service as well as a service from northern New Brunswick to Montreal, and connections from there to western Canada, the United States and Europe. In my view northern New Brunswick at the present time could have a local air service. By this I mean a service which operates within the maritime provinces. We are not served as well as we could be between northern New Brunswick and Montreal. I believe this is due to the fact that there was never a rational plan for the development of airports; instead they were developed through ad hoc policies. I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) is incensed by the fact that some decisions were ad hoc. The fact is that in 1939 an air force base was built in Chatham. The government and the public had to recognize that as a fact, but Chatham was not the geographic centre to serve northern New Brunswick. It is one of the reasons why airports were not located where they could serve all northern New Brunswick, and another airport was built at Charlo.
I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for many years, as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) should know, and I intend to sit on it again before too long. The hon. member would do well to study the geography of the country and find out exactly where different communities are if he wants to be an expert on transportation.
Northern New Brunswick is not being as well served as it should. It is now being served by Eastern Provincial Airways with a jet service which goes Montreal-Charlo-Chatham and back to Montreal, six days a week, with only one flight per day each way-no morning or evening service. One reason the flight goes in the middle of the day is because at that time the Eastern Provincial Airways jet is not busy on more profitable routes. Because the airline has convinced the Canadian Transport Commission that this route should be eligible for subsidy, there has been no incentive to provide the kind of service that would pay for itself. There has been no encouragement to rationalize a system whereby there would be more frequent service and, at the same time as having the jet service to Montreal, have service to other points.
It seems to me that this is an example of where a subsidy given to a transportation service does not necessarily provide the most efficient and most complete service. In my view, if there were a system whereby the carrier-in this case EPA is the only one that has the possibility of providing the service-I would ask the minister to invite the Canadian Transport Commission to look at the situation and convince EPA that if they receive the subsidy they should provide the local air service to northern New Brunswick as well as to Montreal. By doing that they would improve access to Montreal.
Transportation Policies
I have suggested to the minister on earlier occasions that an airline should provide a service from Charlo-Bathurst to points south, Moncton and Fredericton, and that the passengers who travel from northern New Brunswick to Montreal be flown from Moncton or Fredericton by jet to Montreal. This would give better frequency-probably three flights a day-for the people who go to Toronto or Montreal on business and whose time is precious. They could leave northern New Brunswick in the morning and be back home in the evening. As things stand, now they have to stay overnight in Montreal or Toronto. That entails a cost and, as hon. members know, staying overnight in Montreal can entail things other than cost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: Those who noticed what I said probably know what I am talking about. In my view this would be a better service because it would provide us with a local air service as well.
Until last October another company, Atlantic Central Airlines, was providing service from Bathurst to Fredericton. It applied to the Canadian Transport Commission to expand the service to Charlo and to Moncton. It would have provided three flights a day Charlo-Bathurst-Fredericton and two flights Charlo-Bathurst-Moncton. Unfortunately the commission sat on the application with the idea that it would only be decided when they had public hearings in the maritimes in 1976. It took them until December to make a decision, although the application had been made in March by Atlantic Central Airlines. In the meantime the airline had to halt the service because it was not economical. I am told that if they had received the other routes they could have made it pay. The airline now tells us that despite the fact they received a licence to fly Charlo to the north and Moncton to the south, it would not be possible for them to start again, because if they only have the local service they cannot make it pay while EPA continues the jet flight Montreal-Charlo-Chatham.
In view of the fact that the taxpayer is investing in this service I think we should insist upon maximum efficiency and maximum service. If Eastern Provincial Airways is to continue receiving the subsidy, they should combine with Atlantic Central Airlines, if they can still get in business and if not, EPA should provide a local air service themselves.
As I explained earlier, they could make such a service economic if they would take passengers from northern New Brunswick with more frequent flights-two or three flights per day, in the morning and evening-and fly them to Montreal from Fredericton or from Moncton. For the passenger from Charlo in the north and for the passenger from Bathurst it would mean only one hour extra travelling time. However, in return for the cost he would have the benefit of more flights, and the benefit of a local air service which he does not now have. He could use it to go to Fredericton or Halifax, although why in the world anyone would want to fly to Halifax from northern New Brunswick escapes me. I suppose if one has business in Halifax one must go. One could return home the same day.
80018 -4 Yi

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre believes, I think, that we should grant open-ended subsidies.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not suggest that at all.


Herb Breau: 1 do not think the hon. member said anything different, and I was paying attention to his remarks. I think the hon. member, members of his party and others in this House, suggested that there should be no end to subsidies and deficits and that the taxpayer should pay for uneconomic services without knowing their cost.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: None of them is economical.


Herb Breau: In my view, and in the view of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), we should be able to identify what it costs to transport a passenger from point A to point B. If a passenger is travelling on the train from Halifax to Montreal, say, he should know that it costs the taxpayer approximately $40. I think the subsidy is close to that figure; I do not have the exact figures at my fingertips. But that subsidy is paid from taxes. Perhaps if that passenger knew it was costing him $40 to travel by train, he might travel by air, car, or bus.
I have no quarrel with people wanting to travel by train. I enjoy train travel, but would sooner know how much it actually costs me to travel on a train. In saying this I am not suggesting we should not provide at least one basic service from coast to coast for passengers. I do not think the suggestions editorial writers and commentators made when the transport committee was in the maritimes, that our rail passenger service should be extended, make much sense. In my view, if every train passenger costs the taxpayer between $35 and $40 in subsidy, we should not expand the service. We ought to maintain the basic service, but should not expand it. Actually I think we should try to cut down uneconomic services.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But it is the basic service that costs all the money.


Herb Breau: Answering the hon. member, I can only say that he and others of a like mind are being sucked in by those with a vested interest in railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


Herb Breau: The hon. member says no, but 1 make that accusation. In the maritimes we heard people representing the railway unions appearing before the transport committee and arguing that train service should not only be maintained, but expanded. Some members of the Conservative party supported that point of view. They are entitled to their view. I understand the union's viewpoint, because it wants to protect its membership. Mr. Speaker, the interest of the public, of the citizens of Canada, is not always compatible with the interests of the unions. The public should not be taken in by the arguments of the unions. I think the railways should treat their employees humanely and sensibly, and as much as possible give them the rights of seniority; but we shall need to make adjustments to

services. This will result in job dislocations. I agree that employees should be treated fairly. I have always supported fair and humane social and economic adjustment programs. That is why I am such a staunch supporter of the unemployment insurance program, the DREE program, and of other programs which will lessen the impact of job dislocation, or the dislocation of the life of a community.
I would go further, and support the establishment of adjustment programs for the benefit of communities which have depended on railway service and lost that service; for such communities will lose taxes as well as services. In my view it is foolish to maintain services which can only operate at a deficit or with a subsidy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would you include the air lines?


Herb Breau: Yes. In some instances it is foolish to maintain such a service. 1 will deal with the hon. member's point in a moment. It is ludicrous to operate DC-9's, costing between $6 million and $7 million, on the Montreal-Ottawa run, especially when many flights carry no more than 30 people. Air Canada should not subsidize this unprofitable route with what it earns on more profitable runs. Air Canada should discontinue such routes or services and replace them with bus service. I fly regularly, at least two or three times a month, to the maritimes. Since I know what it costs the taxpayer to fly DC-9's from Ottawa to Montreal half empty, I would rather use a bus and perhaps take half an hour or three quarters of an hour more over-all. You must wait to get a good connection at Dorval, and wait at other points; therefore, I would rather take a bus from Ottawa. The cost of that bus service would be minimal. The capital cost of the bus is in the vicinity of $250,000; in addition, you must pay the driver perhaps $300 or $400 per week, and pay a certain amount for fuel. But that cost will be much lower than the cost of flying an expensive aircraft for which you must make a huge capital outlay and pay large operating and fuel costs.
I say that our transport system should be rationalized, which is exactly what the minister is trying to do, and I admire him for it. I hope he sticks to his program. I hope he disregards the unrealistic and sometimes nonsensical suggestions of the opposition. It is normal that it should speak on behalf of people who have a vested interest in maintaining the present service, and try to embarrass the government. That is the political game. But the people are not foolish. They realize that when a service is uneconomic, they pay for it with their taxes. Therefore it is the government's duty to rationalize these services.
I return to the situation in northeastern New Brunswick. I am not against the concept of providing a subsidy for Eastern Provincial Airways; but if Eastern Provincial is to have a subsidy from the government, it should provide both services previously mentioned to northern New Brunswick, that is to say, local air service and service to Montreal. If they don't want to do it they should let the market determine if the system is viable, let the market set the rates, and be prepared not to accept a subsidy.
June 7, 1977

If a subsidy had not been paid on the route, northern New Brunswick would be better served today. Because the subsidy was paid, the system was never rationalized. I cite this as an example. One could point to many other examples to show how subsidies provided to airlines and railways and other modes of transport have not been of benefit. Because the subsidy was paid, nobody made an effort to rationalize the system and make it profitable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: None of them is profitable.


Herb Breau: With respect, some are profitable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Name one.


Herb Breau: Does the hon. member mean air routes? If the hon. member would do his homework and read Air Canada's annual report, he would see that some routes are profitable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Does the airline pay for its share of airport use?


Herb Breau: Most of the airports in the maritimes, Moncton, Saint John, Halifax and others, pay for themselves.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: With respect, they do not.


Herb Breau: Most direct flights from those airports to Montreal pay for themselves.


An hon. Member:: How about Mirabel?


Herb Breau: If the hon. member would do some homework, read those reports and not look for political slogans, he would see that I am correct.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Mirabel.


Herb Breau: An hon. member mentioned Mirabel. Surely he knows Mirabel is not in the maritime provinces; obviously he does not.
I think it is the duty of the Minister of Transport to make sure this country's transport system is rationalized. I encourage him to do so, support him, and urge him again to consider the matter of Montreal-Ottawa air service. Air Canada is subsidizing this route with more profitable routes. I know fares were increased and frequency of flights reduced. But I think more should be done. If Air Canada were to consult with a bus company I am sure it could provide pretty well as good a service, at much less cost. I suggest it should make a deal with a bus company, whereby the bus company would transport passengers from Montreal to Ottawa, and between other points as well.
A lot of the arguments we hear about transportation do not make much sense. They are merely made to embarrass the government because members know what the government is trying to do is very difficult. There are groups in society, in the case of railroads the unions, which are powerful. They have influence. I understand why they want to maintain railroad
Transportation Policies
service. However, the taxpayers of Canada cannot afford to provide a railroad service because it suits the unions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The unions never said that. That is a dumb statement.


Herb Breau: At certain times the taxpayers of Canada have to invest money in the transportation system, and they should. In a country like Canada we must maintain a basic service from coast to coast. However, the taxpayer should be assured that the service is rational and the money is not being wasted.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion presented by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) which reads:
That in the opinion of this House the government's transportation policies have failed to encourage the growth of strong regional economies, and, in particular, this House condemns the Minister of Transport's Atlantic provinces transportation policy and continues to reject his attitude towards western transportation problems.
The aspect of this motion that I would like to deal with is strong regional economics. I refer to the $12 million to $15 million hangar which the federal government is building at Winnipeg.
On May 23, 1974, during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in Winnipeg. He made a grand announcement, stating that he would be giving the people of Winnipeg a $12 million hangar and that this would create 800 jobs in the aerospace industry in Winnipeg.
There was no reason for the Prime Minister to make that promise. There was no need for such a hangar. I will deal later with a statement made by Mr. Taylor, the president of Air Canada, and the statement by the Prime Minister. It was obvious that it was an attempt to bribe the people of Manitoba with their own money. However, they were not taken in by that attempt by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated the hangar would be built immediately. However, construction did not begin until last year. It is to be completed by the end of this year.
I am quite concerned as to how this hangar will be used. It is a monstrous hangar that will accommodate 747's and LI01 l's. However, Air Canada does not do any servicing of 747's or LlOll's in Winnipeg. The then Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), was in Winnipeg that particular day, May 23, 1974. He was dealing with the economic issues of the day, not trying to bribe people with their own money.
I quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 1, 1976:
Air Canada, with a $12 million hangar under construction here that it claims it doesn't need and isn't paying for is negotiating with Transair Ltd. to share the 80,000 square-foot facility, it has been learned.
Construction is being paid for by the federal treasury. The hangar, a campaign promise of Prime Minister Trudeau and former defence minister James Richardson, will be ready in late 1977.

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
Transair and a representative of the national airline have had discussions on the regional air carrier setting up a separate but shared operation in the fall of next year.
It's understood a five-year lease is one of the clauses of agreement.
There is no shortage of hangars in Winnipeg. There are a number of old Air Canada hangars that can accommodate Ill's, DC7's and DC8's. Also, there is a hangar which can accommodate jet aircraft up to the size of the 707. We certainly have no need for this hangar, but we are stuck with it now. We have to find out what the government is going to do with it because the taxpayers will have to pay the maintenance costs of this monstrous hangar which will no doubt become a white elephant.
The article continued:
Air Canada, which can see no forseeable complete utilization of the facility, feels that leasing space would see the hangar put to proper use until such time as it can incorporate the line maintenance hangar into its present system.
The line maintenance hangar is emptying ash trays and doing light work with aircraft.
The airline doesn't have any aircraft based at Winnipeg and now uses CAE aircraft facilities when it is necessary to put an aircraft inside.
If they can use the CAE facility, I do not know why we need this $15 million hangar.
There is another aspect. Transair is having negotiations with Pacific Western Airlines with regard to a merger. If the merger goes through, all the overhaul work will be done in British Columbia and Alberta. Therefore, Air Canada and Transair will not be requiring any leased space in this $15 million hangar.
As recently as last week Mr. Claude Taylor, the president of Air Canada, was in Winnipeg. He stated, and I quote:
-Air Canada now has enough maintenance staff in Winnipeg to immediately need half of the 80,000 square foot hangar being built for it at the airport.
The Air Canada president said his airline has not reached any agreement with Transair for use of part of the $12 million maintenance hangar and the takeover by PWA could change the complexion of any discussions that have taken place.
At the present time they are scrounging around trying to find some use for this monstrous hangar. I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will take part in the debate later. Due to the present unrest and uncertainty in the province of Quebec, the federal government and Air Canada should give serious consideration to moving part of the overhaul and maintenance division back to Winnipeg and at the same time make use of this monstrous hangar. We have to find some use for it. Because of the size of that hangar, overhaul work on 747's and L101 l's could be carried out in Winnipeg.
There is another point I want to clear up. When I was speaking on Bill C-7 last night the Minister of State (Mul-ticulturalism) (Mr. Guay) interjected. He rose on a point of order which, of course, was not a point of order at all. None of his interjections are. He said, and I quote:
I would like to go on record as saying that I am very pleased with the construction of the hangar at the Air Canada base in Winnipeg. The people of Winnipeg also wanted it.
The people of Winnipeg wanted no such thing. They never made any such representations to me or anyone else.

The minister went on to say:
I am suprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre saying that it is a white elephant.
It will be a white elephant if we do not find some good use for it.
He was the one who was pushing to get it,-
I was not pushing to get a $15 million hangar. I do not know where he dreams these things up. He said "Now he is talking out of the other side of his mouth." Well, I was not. As usual, he has everything mixed up. In the campaigns of 1972 and 1974, when making representations to have part of the overhaul and maintenance division returned to Winnipeg, we certainly did not ask for any $15 million hangar to be built because there are enough hangar facilities already in Winnipeg.
I should like to go a little into the history of the removal of the overhaul operation from Winnipeg to Dorval. The final move was made in 1969 and at that time the former minister of national defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), stated, "It is one of the worst decisions ever made in Canadian history." Truer words were never spoken. It will certainly prove to be one of the costliest moves ever made by an airline, and it is one which has proved disastrous for many aspects of Air Canada's operations.
Air Canada, formerly Trans-Canada Airlines, was established in 1937 by the federal Liberal government of the day. Winnipeg was chosen as the overhaul centre by a group of unbiased American aviation experts who based their choice on all pertinent factors, including the advantages of a dry climate, clear flying weather, land values, construction costs, and taxation. Presumably these experts had no axe to grind and were solely interested in locating the maintenance facilities in the most logical area of Canada, and this they did.
Before the base was located in Montreal a number of studies were carried out and a well-known firm, Wallace Clark, was hired, obviously to bring in a recommendation in favour of Montreal. I should explain why I say that. Air Canada's history shows the company's planned deception and complete disregard for truth. Its refusal to disclose the consultants' report is proof of how far they were prepared to go to achieve the ends they wanted. An added aggravation was the disclosure which finally resulted from the forced release of the Wallace Clark data according to which the Winnipeg location was the one where maintenance operations could be carried out at the lowest cost. However, Wallace Clark ruled Winnipeg out because they were told that DC-8 aircraft would not be landing there. This was not true. They have been landing there for years by the thousands. DC-8 aircraft were routed, and must continue to be routed, through Winnipeg.
I hope the minister will have some comments to make on the use to which this $15 million hangar will be put. Judging from the statements made by the Air Canada president and others, it is difficult to find out just how it will be used. Perhaps the minister will bring us up to date tonight. The minister is now
June 7, 1977

involved in making decisions for Air Canada, building hangars for the corporation and paying for them out of the public treasury, so he is considerably involved in the affairs of Air Canada, together with the Prime Minister, and I trust he will enlighten us tonight as to precisely what the situation is.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned this evening, we are debating a motion which 1 believe is one of the understatements of the year-
That in the opinion of this House the government's transportation policies have failed to encourage the growth of strong regional economies, and, in particular, this House condemns the Minister of Transport's Atlantic provinces transportation policy and continues to reject his attitude towards western transportation problems.
As I enter this discussion on transportation policy I cannot but think of the words used by the writer of a book entitled "Canada-A Story of Challenge." This historian, describing the nature of Canada and the way in which its geography tends to have a profound impact on the social and economic fabric of the nation, wrote:
Barriers such as the mountains and the shield exact a heavy price in scattering the population. They make for sectional divisions and high transportation charges. They weaken national unity and retard national development.
Four indictments are levelled in this quotation. First, these barriers make for sectional divisions: second, they weaken national unity; third, they retard national development; and fourth, they make for high transportation charges.
It is true that in western Canada unfair and discriminatory freight rates have contributed more to western alienation and a decline in national unity than even the questions of language and culture. However, I would not attribute these unfortunate effects to the physical factors maintained by the author of the book to which I referred. Rather, I attribute them to the policies, or lack of policies, enunciated and implemented by Liberal governments in past years. In the area of transport we have shuffled from one transportation mess, to use the words of a former minister, to another, and if political prophets are correct in their predictions we shall soon see the demise of yet another minister and the installation of a successor.
Even at this point there appears to be uncertainty regarding the implementation of a comprehensive national transportation policy. The rail system is important not only for the prairie region but for all Canada since the quality of the facilities put in place primarily for the prairie provinces have a very great effect upon the economy of British Columbia and, indeed, upon that of the whole nation. The failure to maintain an adequate standard of trackage across Canada, the failure to maintain adequate rolling stock, the failure of the companies to update their facilities, the decision to make huge investments in enterprises which have little or nothing to do with transport are a matter of great concern to those whose livelihood depends to a great extent on the movement of products to and from the areas in which they live.
My comments this evening will relate chiefly to my own province of British Columbia, and in particular to the agricultural sector. Although arable land in the province is extremely limited, my riding is one of the most important agricultural
Transportation Policies
areas and I wish to relate my remarks to the motion as it affects conditions there. As a background to what I have to say I should like to indicate the extent and value of the livestock and poultry sectors of the agricultural industry in British Columbia. Farm cash receipts are as follows: cattle, $66,696,000; calves, $6,055,000; hogs, $11,599,000; sheep and lambs, $789,000; dairy products, $103,157,000; poultry, $36,969,000; eggs, $34,496,000; other livestock, $9,107,000.
This indicates the extent of the livestock industry in my province and emphasizes the importance of the feed grain situation in the province of British Columbia. I do not have the Figures for 1976 here, but I have figures up to 1975. An analysis of the last three crop years shows that the feeding areas of the province, other than the Peace River district, consume about 480,000 tons of feed grains per year, of which 9 per cent is locally grown, 10 per cent is terminal elevator screenings, and 81 per cent is prairie grains and millfeeds of American corn.
Because of various situations which have developed, one being the matter of transportation, the increase of the importation of American corn is very, very clearly outlined. For instance in 1972 there were 14,400 tons imported, and in 1975 there were 73,600 tons imported. The increasing use of American corn is the result of a number of factors-the cost factor, transportation costs, and interruptions in transportation through strikes and other situations which are forcing people in British Columbia to depend more and more upon imports from the United States.
The industry was incensed when the government announced a reduction of $4 per ton on feed freight assistance to British Columbia. We appreciate the fact that this was restored when it was pointed out by the industry, the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, the provincial government, members of parliament and others, that the basis upon which this decision was made was actually a false one. This was particularly important to the Fraser Valley, for 80 per cent of the subsidized grain was used mainly in the lower mainland of the province and in the poultry and dairy industries. 1 am indicating this to show the importance of adequate transportation as far as the agricultural economy of British Columbia is concerned.
I am stressing the input problems which are being faced by agricultural producers, rather than the marketing of their product. However, there are a great many problems which are militating against the development and maintenance of a viable agricultural economy in the province of British Columbia. I mentioned first the lower priority which is assigned to the feed grain industry. We all recognize the importance of our export industry, but we have to consider that producers in Canada are battling in order to develop an industry and to maintain an industry without which the nation would be very much the poorer. So, we think of the lower priority assigned the feed grain industry; the lower priority which is recognized by transportation companies in providing

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
transportation facilities; the unfair aspects of the block system, which has been set up mainly to assist in the export trade and which militates against the maintenance of adequate supplies of feed grains for the domestic producers in the province of British Columbia; and the inadequate provision of modern rail cars.
Hopper cars are used for the transport of grains for export, and we believe they should be used in the domestic feed grain industry as well because they are needed there. Unfortunately the industry is left using the outmoded equipment which has been replaced by the modern hopper car for the export trade.
We think also of the inequitable application of demurrage charges, which are applied to domestic grain but not to the movement of export grain on the west coast. Finally there are the unequal transportation rates on the movement of feed grains as compared with export grains. These have been stated very clearly on many occasions.
I should like to point out the comparative rail freight costs for shipping grain from Regina, Saskatchewan, to Ottawa, 1,652 miles, is $16.40 per ton or 99 cents per ton mile; Regina, Saskatchewan, to Sherbrooke, Quebec, 1,865 miles, is $18.60 or a cents per ton mile of $1; Regina, Saskatchewan, to Truro, Nova Scotia, 2,408 miles, is $20.20, or 84 cents per ton mile; Vulcan, Alberta, to Vancouver, British Columbia, 711 miles, is $18.40, or a cents per ton mile of $2.59 for domestic grain; and Vulcan, Alberta, to Vancouver, British Columbia, 711 miles, is $4.20, or 59 cents per ton mile for export grain.
The export movements have the benefit of the Crowsnest rates to Thunder Bay and water competitive rates beyond. On westbound shipments the Crow rates apply only to export grain. Thus we find the industry in British Columbia is strenuously opposing the paying of more freight on domestic grains to Vancouver. When we put these figures together, we see the industry in British Columbia is faced with a great many problems and a great many factors which militate against the maintenance of a viable industry in that province.
One example of freight inequity may be cited in the transportation of the finished product, for example, chicken-east versus west. The rates supplied by the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, which I believe are for 1974 and are comparable to the present time, are 7.85 cents per pound of chicken from Vancouver to Montreal versus 2.99 cents per pound of chicken from Montreal to Vancouver. When this is converted into terms of grains required to produce this pound of chicken, we come up with a relative rate of $8.30 per ton of grain in the form of chicken coming west versus $21.82 going east. That indicates how much we are out of line in endeavouring to move our products from the west to the east, as against the movement of similar products from the east to the west. This has caused a great deal of dissension, a great deal of antagonism, and a great deal of alienation in western Canada-the unfair freight rates which exist on goods sent east versus the rates on goods transported west.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is uphill both ways.
[Mr. Patterson.J


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes, it is uphill both ways, as far as western Canada is concerned.
I should like to make reference to a communication 1 received from the B.C. Livestock Producers Co-operative Association which has to do with the livestock industry. This letter reads:
We were most concerned last fall when proposed freight rate changes were proposed for an increase of 11 per cent for B.C....
The letter refers to various increases, but a flat rate was agreed upon. It continues:
Of equal importance and concern to us, is the availability of rolling stock for livestock shipping during the fall. Since we are the western terminus in so far as eastern shipments are concerned during the heavy shipments of western feeders to Ontario, it is sometimes difficult to obtain sufficient numbers of cars.
Here again there is a shortage of transportation facilities and rolling stock for livestock shipped to marked.
The letter continues:
I understand that there has not been a livestock car built since 1947 for an industry that has almst doubled in numbers since that time.
It is indeed puzzling to note the thousands of cars built with federal funds for the grain industry and the potato industry in the maritimes, but not for Canada's third largest industry.
All of this has to do with the agricultural economy in British Columbia. I could go on to refer to freight rates as they affect other industries in British Columbia, such as the lumber industry. Here again this industry faces insurmountable obstacles in marketing its products, such as inadequacy of rolling stock. Many times it is unable to obtain the required transportation facilities to keep one of the greatest industries in the province of British Columbia going.
I had a situation develop locally not too long ago concerning discrimination resulting from a CPR-induced boxcar shortage. It occurred in an area of my riding, Mission, where rolling stock was unavailable. A telegram was sent to the president of the Canadian Transport Commission which read as follows:
Sir, we in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia are experiencing an extremely dire situation in regards to boxcar supply. We feel CPR is discriminating against us because of what they refer to as an unfavourable economic situation. We would ask you for your immediate intervention on our behalf. We have forwarded a complete brief by registered mail.
The company concerned also contacted their member of parliament and, I believe, another member of parliament from British Columbia. Representations were made and the matter was resolved, but here again we have a case where a small company is endeavouring to carry on its operations and expand an industry within the community, yet is faced with discrimination and is unable to move its products.
I am very happy to have had the opportunity tonight of speaking to this motion because, as I have already pointed out, I believe the problem is not a question of geography but rather one of inadequate transportation policies which have worked to the detriment of the agricultural industry of British Columbia as well as of other industries. As I have said, there are inadequate facilities provided to move products to market and
June 7, 1977

to bring into industries the input required to maintain their viability.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into the debate this evening on the motion before the House, particularly as it relates to the Atlantic provinces. At the outset I might say that all too often we have considered an opposition motion which is so negative in nature that insufficient interest is shown by the opposition party to the extent that the mover of the motion, who in this case happens to represent a constituency in the Atlantic provinces, does not even remain in the House. Evidently this motion is deemed by the hon. member to be insufficiently serious enough for him to be in the House this evening. As a matter of fact, as I tally up the number of members opposite, there are something like six members-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out; there may not be a quorum!


Maurice James Harquail: -of the loyal opposition in attendance this evening. I feel this is a sad observation to make on this parliament. If I may quote the motion before the House, it is:
That in the opinion of this House the government's transportation policies have failed to encourage the growth of strong regional economies, and, in particular, this House condemns the Minister of Transport's Atlantic provinces transportation policy and continues to reject his attitude towards western transportation problems.
How can maritime members, be they supporters of the government or the opposition, turn their backs on the $125 million worth of programs recently announced by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), which are a positive step to assist in alleviating some of the dire transportation problems facing that region today? In terms of rationalization of transportation and alleviating transportation problems, it is beyond my comprehension how so little interest is displayed.
All the rhetoric I have listened to in recent days raises a grave question in my mind as to whether we really have an official opposition daily in attendance in this House.
' Mr. Patterson: We do not often have the government in attendance either.


Maurice James Harquail: In view of the way that the House leader of the official opposition spoke today, I am seriously wondering just where the opposition is in the House. Of course with the type of leadership which they have to follow, whether it be the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), or the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), or wherever it is he is from, there is no doubt hon. members opposite have a problem, but I am really distressed to see this situation develop at this point in Canadian history.
I should like to return to a more positive note-


Walter David Baker: You could not if you tried.


Maurice James Harquail: -and reiterate what the minister has done on behalf of the Atlantic area. He has sat down in a very sincere and serious way with the council of maritime premiers,
Transportation Policies
including the representative of the Newfoundland government, Mr. Morgan, and after many hours of debate and deliberation has arrived at a decision to provide in the order of $300 million worth of subsidies for transportation paid in the maritimes in 1976, whether it be rail transportation, air transportation, or what have you.
In addition, he has discussed freight rates and assistance to provincial ferries in the Atlantic provinces. I submit that he has made a positive contribution on behalf of a government which looks into the heart of a problem and comes up with a solution. In this way the government has assisted the Atlantic provinces to overcome their most serious transportation problems.
When I consider that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who is a maritimer and is supposed to know and understand the problems of Atlantic Canada and who is called the official critic on transportation for the official opposition, would have the mitigated gall-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Unmitigated gall.


Maurice James Harquail: -my friend, who is a member representing one of the western provinces, who has just interjected, as a matter of fact travelled with the transport committee to the Atlantic provinces this past week. I might inform members of the House that in spite of all that might be said about citizens of the Atlantic regions in this country, whether they be members of parliament or elected representatives at the municipal or provincial level, and despite all criticisms that have been expressed by people in the maritimes about not being heard, about being a voice crying in the wilderness, about not being able to bring their points of view forward- and this might be ironical or amusing-in the past week meetings have been held in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and the CTC has conducted hearings with respect to the rail-passenger service in the maritime provinces. On top of that the government has carried out in good faith its undertaking made some time last year to visit the western provinces, particularly the port and harbour facilities in Vancouver, and we also made good our commitment to visit the east coast.
Indeed it is history now that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has just completed an in depth visit to St. John's, Newfoundland; Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax when the citizens of that area were given every opportunity to appear and make their voices, opinions and interventions heard before the standing committee on the question of transportation policies, transportation facilities and subsidies, as well as on any other question they might deem appropriate to bring before the committee. Indeed it was a most interesting and enlightening exercise in which I had the honor of participating as a member of the committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell them how they kicked Ottawa around.


Maurice James Harquail: The fact of the matter is that, discouraging as it was to hear some of the witnesses who appeared before us

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
say that they might have appreciated having had more time to present and prepare more briefs, if these people who are concerned with dry docks, shipbuilding, and transportation questions in general, as well as facilities for containerization, had been seriously involved in this business, they would have known that we had made a commitment last year to visit the east coast. Had they been more aware, they would have known that it was stated in the House, recorded in Hansard, and in the proceedings of the committee on Transport and Communications, that we fully intended to visit the east coast, to visit Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia to discuss these matters and to hear the views of these people. Similarly, the Canadian Transport Commission will be visiting Halifax and Fredericton on Friday, June 10. They will be in my riding of Restigouche and will come to the city of Campbellton to give an opportunity to the people there to express their views regarding the need for a future rail passenger service in eastern Canada.
. I ask you, what more can the government do? It is conducting meetings in the very areas where we are being criticized. It is meeting with the various associations and organizations concerned with transportation problems in the area. The Canadian Transport Commission, under the direction of the Hon. Edgar Benson, is conducting hearings this year with respect to the rail passenger service. Last year the CTC spent many months in the Atlantic provinces deliberating on the whole question of the air passenger service in that region. On top of that the government has expended $300 million in subsidies for transportation in the Atlantic area. In addition- and this is not promise but a fact

recently the Minister of Transport announced that $125 million would be spent right away to assist the different modes of transport in the east, such as rail, air, ferry, and bus transportation.
In spite of all these positive actions by the government we see before us today this most negative motion brought in by the official opposition stating that they condemn the minister's transportation policy in the Atlantic provinces. How can a member of parliament from the Atlantic area rise in the House and make such a statement, let alone carry the responsibility of being the official transportation critic of the official opposition? It is quite beyond me to understand that. It comes right down to what I have said recently-although one who supports our democratic system would be reluctant to say this-that we have no opposition at all. They show no creativity, no innovation, no new ideas.
This is not a tired opposition; it is no opposition. They do not refer to the positive actions of the government such as the $285 million or $300 million paid out in subsidies. They do not refer to the inquiries and studies being carried out by the CTC with respect to the rail passenger service. They will not comment about the inquiry that was carried out last year with respect to the air passenger service. All they do is make measly statements here about the lack of effectiveness of the coastguard, for example, when anyone who had the opportunity to take part in the visit of the transport committee to the Atlantic area recently would know that a substantial amount of the
[Mr. Harquail.)
taxpayers' money is being invested by the government in the Atlantic area to do the best job that can be done there.
Let me say a few words about the dedication of the MOT officials. You will not find another civil servant or federal government employee who is more dedicated than the employees of the MOT, whether we talk about the people who work in the Department of Transport or about employees of Crown corporations. To a man these are good Canadians, God fearing, hard working.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: They contribute in a most positive way to the work of the department. Yet we have to sit here and listen to the negative approach of the opposition. They do not seem capable of at least acknowledging some of the positive moves of the government. Yet the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in introducing the motion-


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened for a few moments to what might pass for a speech. I am referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). I was in the House when the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), about whom he is speaking, made his speech with respect to the motion that was put forward. I listened very carefully to this speech. As a matter of fact I seconded the motion. I thought I did not hear the hon. member correctly the first time, but when he repeated that the speech of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was negative I felt it necessary to rise on a point of order. It seems obvious to me that the hon. member for Restigouche was somewhere-I do not know where-when the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was making his speech, but he was not in the Chamber.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right, he was not in the Chamber.


Walter David Baker: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have listened to the hon. member but I fail to find a point of order in what he said.


Maurice James Harquail: I sympathize with you tonight, Mr. Speaker, when I hear you observe that you cannot see a point of order in what the hon. member said. It is not the first time that we have witnessed a dismal performance from the opposition House leader. He said that he seconded the opposition motion. Obviously he is in dire straits so far as communication with the members of his own caucus is concerned. How can he, as House leader of the official opposition, second the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, and at the same time deny in the most negative terms our right to enjoy the benefits of the $125 million to alleviate some of our transportation problems in the east? Surely the hon. member can do better than to come in at this late hour anu make interjections and raise points of order. He should stop and reconsider his
June 7, 1977

own position in the light of the motion which is before us tonight.
I do not think it makes good sense or good parliamentary procedure for the opposition to interrupt proceedings in this manner. 1 suggest to hon. members opposite that perhaps they should have more meetings of their own committees to decide what is really right for this country in terms of the approach they should take in this House, and in terms of assisting in some concrete and positive way to making a contribution to this parliament, rather than trying to ridicule the government the way they do. It is really sad when we have to tolerate this type of interference.
When we were in the maritime provinces I said throughout the hearings that we should support the maritime premiers. Indeed the premier of New Brunswick has made attempts to find a solution to the whole problem of air passenger service in the four Atlantic provinces. A solution was put forward to the air branch of the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to utilizing the Canadian built de Havilland Dash-7, a 50 passenger aircraft which could be used to provide daily service between the four Atlantic provinces.
That is not to mention the possibility of utilizing the twin Otter in a way which would provide rapid transportation between the various municipalities in the province of New Brunswick. This is something I have had occasion to speak about previously. This is something I advocate and support earnestly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought you wanted to conserve energy.


Maurice James Harquail: We have to do that in every way possible. An hon. member opposite who is a member of the NDP interjects. Yes, I am for conservation of energy, and it certainly does not make sense to me, in view of the winters we are faced with, to talk about replacing rail service or air service with bus service.
I am completely convinced that in every area of each of the four Atlantic provinces air service is the solution we should be looking to because bus service really does not make much sense in terms of a logical approach to the very severe winters we have. I think there should be a very close study made of the cost of the utilization of energy with respect to operating buses as opposed to an efficient air passenger service which could provide a more effective pattern of service to the travelling public. I appreciate that an in depth study should be made with respect to the scheduling of flights so that we can have load factors which will offset the costs we are faced with in these days of high fuel costs.
I appreciate having this opportunity to set the record straight with regard to some of the drib-drab we have had to listen to from some of the previous speakers opposite.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is that the same as cow plats?


Maurice James Harquail: Their remarks on what the government is doing have been negative. I do not care what kind of politics or dollars we are talking about; any time a government
Transportation Policies
announces $125 million to alleviate a transportation problem in the Atlantic provinces, it is a darned good step, and I certainly would not have any truck with an hon. member from the Atlantic provinces who would speak in any other way, when I consider the very dedicated and sincere efforts being made by the Minister of Transport on our behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing the hon. member who just spoke lives in Restigou-che because he would be speaking with a forked tongue if he came from Carleton-Charlotte and if he were to discuss transportation problems as he discussed them tonight. I submit that no hon. member from the Atlantic provinces and few hon. members from eastern Quebec can take the position taken by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) with a clear conscience. It must have taken a strong application of the political whip to make a man who comes from that area talk that way.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 submit that it would be more to the advantage of the hon. member opposite if he would stick closely to the motion which is before us tonight, a motion brought in by the official opposition. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) should not make the kinds of comments he is making.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, you have given those remarks the attention to which they were entitled. You have dismissed them as they should have been dismissed, and I appreciate that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As you were saying?


Fred Alward McCain: Has the hon. member for Restigouche received a personal political assurance that any passenger service which might be rendered in the province of New Brunswick will go up the north shore? Is that the reason he talks the way he does?


Maurice James Harquail: We've got it anyway.


Fred Alward McCain: If the hon. member has been given that assurance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has a board of inquiry in the Atlantic area-or perhaps it left last night which has certainly been operating under a misconception. It was presumed in the Atlantic area that that was a meaningful trip, but if the hon. member has the assurance that the passenger service will in fact, by a predetermined policy of the government, continue to go up through the north shore of the province of New Brunswick, then he could, of course, speak as he did in his own constituency. However, he would not be

June 7, 1977
Transportation Policies
helping some of his confreres who will be denuded of any passenger service by a predetermined judgment. It may be an exercise in futility for the Canadian Transport Commission to conduct any hearings whatsoever.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. I would like to set the record straight.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This is a matter for debate, certainly not a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member has asked for some concrete proposals, and I will give him one. We should insist, as the hon. member for Restigouche has done, on behalf of the Atlantic area that the rights extended to eastern Canada under the BNA Act be exercised by a policy of the government and its minister. That has not been done. That is a constructive suggestion, and because that suggestion has not been accepted by the party which the hon. member opposite embraces, it becomes an item of criticism. Those rights should have been extended to the Atlantic area and eastern Quebec. Those areas have been conscientiously and intentionally denied those rights as a result of government policy, and the hon. member opposite is part of that government party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It wasn't much different when the Tories were in.


Fred Alward McCain: With all due respect to the hon. member from that socialist party to my left, when a Conservative government was in power rail transportation rates made it possible to move lumber to east central Canada by rail. It left the agricultural industry in eastern Canada in a competitive position, to which we are entitled under the BNA Act, when we shipped to central Canada. That is what the policy of the Conservative party contained, and that is why the remark of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) is really out of order.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us examine a few individual instances and the policy of the government as it relates to them. I admit that the Atlantic area has under used the passenger service offered by the railroads, but we should look at the history of that service. I went to a little school in Wolfville called Acadia University, one of the best universities in Canada, if not the best.


Mr. MacFarlane:: The second best in North America.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a prejudiced remark and history will reveal the cause of the prejudice. When I took a passenger train home I found myself stopped in the middle of the night, about 2 a.m., having to wait six hours in an isolated station with no services available whatsoever for the passenger service operated by the CP to connect with the CN passenger service. We went from there to Moncton and waited anything up to six hours before we moved up to the

village of Juniper. It was an 18-hour trip. Had the government of that time been concerned for the people who used the passenger service there would have been a reasonable connection provided.
To proceed to more modern times, the government has-and I think intentionally-disrupted the mail service by taking it from the trains which gave overnight delivery from Ottawa to my community and provided revenue to passenger and express services as well. When the mail was removed from the passenger service it heralded the demise of that service. This is part of the structure. Maybe the hon. member for Restigouche is not aware of these things. At that time many applications were received for the cessation of the passenger service in eastern Canada. Of course it has been predetermined that it will go up the north shore and that the rest of the province of New Brunswick will go without.
Let us look now at the port facility in the city of Saint John. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications held hearings throughout the Atlantic area. Of course the hon. member for Restigouche paid a little attention to that but did not follow it up. We were told that facilities for the movement of potatoes, which is important to the province, had been inadequate for years. The railroads have been allowed to abandon the principle of proper provision of equipment for the movement of perishables on the rails, not only in eastern Canada but in Kelowna, in Ontario, and in any part of Canada in which there are perishables to be shipped. I submit that that makes the government subject to criticism. It can buy 6,000 grain cars but it cannot manage the agricultural structure in regard to perishables. It has a particularly blind eye when it comes to Saint John.
Let us see what happened in Halifax. I do not remember seeing the hon. member for Restigouche there. We were told by the Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board that they could throw a cat through the cracks in the door. We were told that the facility was so poor that when using the available shed, one exporter had hired all the heating equipment that was for rent in the city of Halifax in order to keep his product warm in that port facility. When the shipment got to its destination he was not sure whether the potatoes had frozen in transit to the shed or had frozen in the shed in spite of all the heating equipment he had provided to keep them warm.
I am told that I should not criticize; that I should be constructive. But let us remember the BNA responsibility of government to eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces- then we will not be critical because we will not have to be. The reasonable obligation of government in the field of transportation will have been fulfilled if these responsibilities are faced.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not remember seeing the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) in St. John's, Newfoundland, and at some of the other meetings. If he is going to get into the semantics of who was at what meeting I think the record should show that he missed the bus that was provided for him in Halifax. I happen to have been there and I know about that.
June 7, 1977


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not deduct that from my time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, would you like me to tell all? I was there all the time.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Restigou-che is absolutely correct. I was not with them in St. John's, Newfoundland, because I had been invited to attend the Canadian Forum on Transportation Research which was meeting in St. Andrews. I submit that by attending it I got an additional perspective on the responsibility of government which the hon. member for Restigouche missed. As a member of the transportation committee I paid my own way that day while he was travelling at government expense.
I should like now to talk about another aspect of government negligence in the field of transportation. One of the things we encountered in the various presentations was an opposition to the increase in freight rates. The Prince Edward Island Potato Marketing Board and the New Brunswick Potato Shippers' Association pointed out to the committee that
Transportation Policies
in just a little over 12 months the freight rate increases on potato products had in their accumulated effect increased by over 50 per cent. I thought we had an Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Speaker, and the potato shippers thought we had an Anti-Inflation Board. Is the transportation system above the law? Is it only the little people who are to be regulated by the Anti-Inflation Board, while the big guys are not? That 50 per cent increase again deflects the intention of the British North America Act inasumch as it may very well remove that product from competition in the Canadian market. As I have said before, and I hate to be repetitive, if one examines the cost in the State of Maine of moving the same product by rail-I see it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
It being ten o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Wednesday, June 8, 1977