1977-03-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the objection of the Canada Safety Council to the presence of a new electronic game destined for arcades and fairgrounds wherein the object is to drive a simulated vehicle so as to kill as many pedestrians as possible in a 60 second period, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That in the name of family safety the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce immediately ban this game from entering Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some concern about the jurisdictional aspect of the motion, but in any case, the motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


USE OF OIL IMPORT SUBSIDY FUNDS FOR NATIONAL HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of internal documents that I have received from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources showing another whopping surplus of at least $237 million on the government's oil import subsidy program for 1977, this following a $300 million surplus for 1976, and in view of the fact that only two provinces- the only two provinces with Liberal governments-have received the benefits of the federal government's residential insulation program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to use the surplus funds related to the oil import subsidy program for a national program of insulating residences, which action would not only conserve energy but also stimulate the creation of jobs in the economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It is the same motion that I put to the House yesterday. I have had some discussions and I understand there might be a disposition to accept this motion without debate. I think it is most appropriate that the motion be moved today because there are lobbyists in Washington at present who are providing misleading information to U.S. Senators with a view to having a resolution passed in that body similar to that passed by the House of Representatives. I would remind hon. members that Canada's integrity is at stake, and I urge them to support this motion because the resolution passed by the U.S. Congress did not include the killing of seals in Alaska by American sealers performed in the same way. With the unanimous consent of the House and seconded by the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), I move:
That this House supports the right of Canadians to hunt seals off Canada's east coast and further supports the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment for the steps he has taken to ensure that the hunt is strictly supervised and conducted in a humane manner with quotas based on the best scientific data available to ensure proper management and conservation of the herd.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 24, 1977
Finance

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity and I hope that I will be as successful as my colleague.
Since unemployment is disastrously high in Canada, since supplementary estimates should be allotted to meet those alarming conditions, since the Canada Works Program and the Young Canada Works Program can partly alleviate that national calamity, and finally since the estimates already earmarked for those programs are clearly insufficient to comply with a decent minimum number of requests made under those programs, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the House unanimously ask the minister responsible to double immediately the estimates already announced for the Canada Works Program and the Young Canada Works Program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


FINANCE
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
In view of the inalienable right of all Canadian taxpayers to know exactly what is done with the money they pay in taxes of all sorts, in view of the responsibility all hon. members have to give an account to their electors of the use that is made of their contributions to the federal government, and in view of the fact that the government is duty-bound to be responsible for the expenditures incurred in each of the Canadian provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House order the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to draw up a statement of receipts and expenditures, both direct and indirect, for each of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Superior Court Chief Justice Jules Des-chenes recently ruled that the RCMP does not have to reveal the reasons which lead to the firing of two young Montreal women from their Olympic jobs on the ground of national security and on the recommendation of the RCMP. The Chief Justice based this ruling upon a 1970 amendment to the law of the federal court which sanctioned in five specific cases the principle of absolute executive immunity, but he pointed out that a different rule prevailed in the United States, England, Australia and New Zealand.
Inasmuch as this Canadian rule is inconsistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights, which entitles any person to a fair hearing, and in view of the importance of secrecy of official documents being confined to a minimum I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Solicitor General be instructed to review the law in this regard and introduce legislation which would change the principle of absolute executive immunity in such cases to one of relative immunity, subject to review by the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the standing order can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about a very serious point relating to job
March 24, 1977

vacancies. I would like to remind the minister of his statement in the House on March 21, recorded at page 4149 of Hansard, when he said, and I quote:
At the end of any given month some 100,000 vacant jobs are available, just through CMCs.
1 want to ask the minister if it is not a fact that the last time there were 100,000 vacant jobs available on the basis that he suggested was September 1974 and that at the present time there are less than half that number of jobs available on that basis?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of representations made by the hon. member yesterday I asked if statistics could be made available.
I understand they can and I shall be tabling them, at the request of the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the minister's obvious reluctance to supply the House and the country, including the unemployed, with a comparison between the statistics put out by his department as opposed to the job vacancy survey data of Statistics Canada, which data the minister has disputed, I want to challenge the minister to refute the data I have which indicates a pretty consistent relationship between the two sets of statistics. For example, for January of this year his department's statistics indicated job vacancies of 39,000 while Statistics Canada had a figure of 38,000.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, once again, I have indicated that the job vacancy survey put out by Statistics Canada measures trends in the level of job vacancies as opposed to the total stock of vacancies that are available.


STATISTICS CANADA
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in light of the fact that Statistics Canada is under his jurisdiction. Keeping in mind that his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has indicated that the job vacancy statistics as issued by Statistics Canada are misleading, useless, and have to be looked at with a jaundiced eye, and given the fact that we must have some form of statistics in which the country can have faith, would the minister look into the allegations made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order that we can come up with statistics that are acceptable not only to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but to the minister himself, so that this whole matter can be cleared up once and for all?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that I
Oral Questions
do not meddle with statistics, a subject which is the responsibility of experts within this department. This is a very precise subject and there is no instruction I can give these officials. They must carry out their duties according to the standards of their profession. I have certainly asked questions about these statistics, for these data are quite precise and could serve all sorts of purposes. If the hon. member wants to know why these statistical reports are prepared, he should contact the director general of Statistics Canada, who will certainly be happy to provide him with all necessary information.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That answer is a complete abdication of the minister's responsibility. Does he not realize that these statistics as issued by his department are relied upon by the unemployed and by concerned people throughout this country. How can he stand there-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member knows that he should not intervene, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore, one supplementary question.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: One supplementary question Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the figures released by Statistics Canada for the last three months of 1976 which indicate that Canadian manufacturing industries are operating at only 81 per cent of capacity as compared with 90 per cent in 1973, will the minister indicate how much this decline in productivity affects job opportunities or are these statistics incorrect? What steps does he propose to improve productivity and provide more jobs for Canadians?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly give a statistical response but obviously if a plant operates with a certain degree of efficiency for one month or one period of time and a lesser degree at another time, then it does have an impact on jobs but so far as exact numbers are concerned, I would not have that figure.

March 24, 1977
Oral Questions ENERGY


USE OF OIL IMPORT SUBSIDY FUNDS FOR NATIONAL HOME INSULATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING DOCUMENTS SHOWING AMOUNT OF FUND
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources based on internal papers prepared by his department for a deputy ministers' meeting held in Ottawa last week. These documents forecast another huge profit for the federal government related to the oil import subsidy program of approximately $237 million for 1977. I should like to ask the minister if he will confirm these figures and if he would be prepared to apply this surplus to a national program of home insulation which would not only conserve energy but provide badly needed jobs?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the number the hon. member mentioned is about right although I cannot confirm it, not having seen the document. But I think it is of that order. I will certainly make the representations he has suggested to my colleagues. Let me say that there is no such thing as a fund with respect to the compensation account. Strictly, it is a notational account, one accumulating over a long period of time which must provide for the possibility of future increases charged by OPEC nations.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is technically correct. It is not a fund. But as I said, a surplus is building up. There was $300 million for the immediate past year, and another $237 million is forecast for this year. I should like to know, in order to make clear his interesting answer, if the minister is saying to the House that he is prepared to recommend to cabinet this: that the kind of conservation and insulation program which has been applied in two provinces on the east coast ought now to be applied to all provinces?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that although I have much sympathy for that particular position.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know why the minister will not say that now. Will he not give us the commitment that he will take that serious and entirely desirable proposition before Cabinet? And, related to that, will he table in the House that whole set of documents to which I referred, which were presented by his own officials or which they had with them at the meetings last week with the minister's provincial equivalents.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the documents to which the hon. member refers are internal documents. They are not documents I am prepared to table.


FINANCE
Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Even though the right hon. Prime Minister answered me recently that it was too theoretical an approach to make an evaluation of the funds collected and spent by the federal government in every province, would the minister tell the House whether he has nevertheless undertaken such a study within his department so that all Canadians, particularly Quebecers, could know for sure how tax revenues are shared in this country?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to answer such a question. I said it was possible, with tax figures, to make such an evaluation for the whole country and for each province. But in a broader sense, the benefits derived from Confederation involve some rather arbitrary judgments on the sharing of government's expenses and goods between the various provinces of Canada and in that sense such an evaluation has necessarily to be interpreted as arbitrary. However, I can confirm that with the tax statistics produced by Statistics Canada, we have figures which can be prepared to meet these needs.


POSSIBLE LACK OF FINANCIAL ARGUMENTS ON QUEBEC SEPARATION REFERENDUM
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Andr£ Fortin (Lotbini£re): Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of my colleague. Does the minister mean that if a referendum were to take place, as announced in Quebec, the federal government would have nothing but emotional arguments to put forward for stressing the value of Canada?
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I already pointed out that to me, and I think to my colleagues, Confederation represents more than a simple question of money.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Since clause 9 of Bill C-43 will clearly make the minister the policy maker in communications and thus effectively destroy the independence of the CRTC, can the minister tell the House how in these circumstances the CRTC can effectively carry out its
March 24, 1977

independent inquiry into the CBC and the alleged bias in the balance of programming?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the bill I introduced in the House a few days ago alters in no way the independence of the .CRTC, although it empowers the government to give general guidelines to the CRTC as far as the telecommunications policy is concerned. The quasi-judicial function of the CRTC is not at all amended and, as was the case before, the government will not be able to intervene in its functions relating to the allocation of licenses or permits, the content, the quality of the content and the freedom of expression. Moreover, if the CRTC accepted the Prime Minister's invitation to make an investigation into criticisms against Radio-Canada, it did so freely and its independence is not at issue.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer. In view of the fact that the bill authorizes the minister to delegate power to provincial regulatory authorities, and since the minister is going to meet next week with the responsible communications ministers who are in charge of those regulatory authorities, can she tell the House just what she is going to discuss with those provincial ministers, in particular the types of delegation that she intends to give? Can she assure the House that regardless of what type of delegation there is that open public meetings will be maintained at whatever level the responsibility for communications is carried out?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, there is in this legislation, as the hon. member rightly says, an enabling clause which will allow the government, if and when it reaches agreement or negotiates certain aspects of telecommunications with the provinces, to delegate powers to these provinces. At the coming meeting which will take place in Edmonton, I have an idea of the general things the provinces might be interested in sharing because we have been discussing these matters for a number of years. However, the demands will obviously come from the provinces. I will be able to enlighten the hon. member when 1 return from that conference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister assure the House that regardless of what is finally decided and resolved in terms of delegation that if the provincial regulatory body takes the delegated power, it will ensure that the discharge of that power will be by the open public meeting process that is now followed by CRTC?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, any agreement that I have made or might make in the future will of course be announced. These agreements are always announced publicly, either in the House or outside the House. There are no dealings under the table when a federal minister meets provincial ministers to discuss the sharing of responsibilities or aspirations of those provinces with regard to telecommunications.
Oral Questions


NAMES OF PROVINCES WITH WHICH AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED-REASON CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES CLOSED TO PUBLIC
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. In her answer to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, the minister said she has been able to conclude some agreements with some provinces. With what provinces has she made agreements and what other provinces have indicated they plan to sign agreements with the minister?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I have made an agreement, as I have said very often in this House, with the province of Manitoba. If the hon. member had been present in the House, he would have heard about it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: If that is a final agreement with the province of Manitoba, why is there to be another conference in June? If the minister has these agreements with the provinces, why is the conference on communications not open to the public?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to decide whether the conference will be open. I suppose that will be one of the first items on the agenda, whether the conference will be open or not. All the ministers present, including myself, will take a collective decision about the openness of that conference. What is certain is that there will be a full report of that conference as well as press releases and press conference after the conference. That has already been agreed upon. The fact that I have already concluded an agreement with the province of Manitoba surely does not mean I should not have a conference with the ministers of communications to (jiscuss in an ongoing way the matter of telecommunications between the provincial governments and the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It relates to the recently decided case involving Quebec's human rights commission in the matter of the discharging of Cathy Curtin and Sylvia Roche from their employment in connection with the Olympics, which has already received wide prominence including an editorial in today's Le Devoir. Is the minister prepared to concede that the plaintiffs in this case would have had their rights far better protected under the Quebec rules of civil procedure than was the case in this instance because they were victimized by Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act which removes judicial discretion in the question of production of

March 24, 1977
Oral Questions
certain evidence? If the minister does concede that this is the case, what is he prepared to do about it?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: No, I do 'not concede that that is the case, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING SECTION 41(2) OF FEDERAL COURT ACT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The minister will recall our conversation of a few days ago when the human rights legislation was before the House, at which time he said he would consider the appropriateness of amending section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. I should like to know whether he has come to any decision on this question and, if not, whether he will make a decision shortly and refer it to the House at his earliest convenience so that conditions which Chief Justice Deschene described so vividly can be remedied.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I indicated to the provincial attorneys general at a conference in Halifax 18 months ago that I hoped to introduce amendments to the Federal Court Act which were desired by many of them. This has also been a subject of discussion by the Canadian Bar Association in the context of the jurisdiction of the federal government. I have been working on amendments to the act but at this time, because of the pressure of other legislation and other factors, I am unable to say when we shall be introducing any amendments.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Further to the appointment of Mr. Guy de Merlis last week as mediator in the staff relations at the port of Montreal between the longshoremen and the Maritime Employers Association, can the minister report to the House on any new development as regards this mediation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that considerable progress was made during the talks in Montreal. I believe that some of the outstanding issues which were contributing to a deteriorating situation in the port have been turned around. I might mention particularly that the outstanding provision with regard to the so-called "slavery clause" has been removed to the satisfaction of both parties.
(Mr. MacKay.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resolution which was passed by the United States House of Representatives the other day on the basis of false and misleading information provided to United States legislators, and in view of the fact that a similar resolution is about to be presented to the United States Senate, may I ask the minister what steps he is taking through the Canadian ambassador in Washington to provide United States legislators with correct information to offset the false and misleading information provided to them by those who in their zeal seem to show a complete and utter disregard of the facts?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: For once in my life I fully agree with the preamble to the hon. member's question. Perhaps I should have said this is one of the many times I agree with him. At any event, in this case I have made every effort to ensure that legislators in Washington are advised of the facts, including the gentlemen who were the initiators of the unfortunately intemporate and inaccurate resolution which was passed by Congress a few days ago. In addition, I have asked our ambassador in Washington whether there are any further steps which could be taken to ensure that correct information is placed before the legislators. I may have something further to report at a later stage but I can assure the hon. member that all necessary steps are being taken in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister be prepared to consider making an appearance before one of the two committees of the two Houses on foreign affairs to present them with the facts- or perhaps the hon. gentleman could designate someone else to do this, his parliamentary secretary, or even myself?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would be delighted, as I know he is a strong advocate, to have the hon. member for St. John's East go to Washington to any committee he wishes. However, it might not be entirely appropriate at the moment. I will certainly investigate and see whether there is a forum before which the facts can be placed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova of the Minister of Justice. In view of his luck in that direction I will direct it to the Solicitor General. I assume he is familiar with the facts of the case and the finding that the RCMP are not obliged to reveal the sources which led to
March 24, 1977

the firing of these young women and that the sweeping clauses of section 41(2) of the federal act applied. In view of the judge's statement that this absolute immunity of the executive is based upon an amendment to the Federal Court Act, would the hon. gentleman confer with his colleagues, particularly, perhaps, with the Minister of Justice, to cause an inquiry to be made and to seek to persuade him of the need for action being taken to bring about legislation to confine this immunity to cases where it is absolutely essential and, furthermore, to provide that a judicial review be made available without the disclosure of confidential sources in cases of injustice in the firing of employees on certificates of the RCMP?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the procedure which was followed in the courts of Montreal was consequent upon the provisions of an act which was passed by parliament in 1970. As far as revisions to the Federal Court Act are concerned, I shall be pleased to discuss possible alternatives to present provisions with the Minister of Justice.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is the minister aware that even in the middle of the last war when people were interned for security reasons, this parliament under the guidance of the then minister of justice, Mr. St. Laurent, provided for a judicial hearing in security cases where the source of information was not disclosed; a right of hearing was given so that the persons concerned-in this case it would be the persons fired-would be able to object?


Francis Fox: I can only repeat that at the moment I am acting under legislation which was passed by a previous parliament in 1970. But, of course, I am more than willing to discuss possible alternative solutions with the Minister of Justice.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for small business. In view of the fact that there continues to exist an area of confusion within the small business community with respect to the government's definition, or lack of definition, of that sector, would the minister define small business as it relates to his portfolio? Can it be assumed that the definition will be the one adopted by the government in its policy making and that it will be the working definition adopted by the various other government departments involved?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: The matter of a definition is a very difficult kind of question and we have been examining it since I obtained the portfolio. There are some studies going on right now about this very question as it relates to other countries and I expect to have more to say about this in the very near future.
Oral Questions


Otto John Jelinek: I appreciate that the minister is attempting to act in good faith within his jurisdiction but I must say it is surprising to find that the government has a ministry of small business but no definition of what small business is. Some four months ago the hon. gentleman said he would outline a government policy on small business as soon as possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question to ask would he put it now?


Otto John Jelinek: Since he has promised that such a policy will be forthcoming, can he undertake to outline a much needed small business policy before the summer?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a commitment to outline the policy before summer. I am not sure how long it will take to complete the kind of examination that I want to have. We are working at it very diligently. It is a very important subject and this is a very important group of people to the economy of this country, so I do not want to commit myself to saying I am going to do it before summer.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of which I have given him notice, is particularly timely because tomorrow the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is celebrating his thirty-seventh anniversary as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in view of the desire of the people of our constituency that the birthplace of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, which is located in Neustadt, Ontario, be preserved for all Canadians as a national historic site, in view of the fact that officials within the minister's department say that no action will be taken by them with regard to this house as long as the right hon. gentleman is still alive because departmental policy forbids commemorating living Canadians, and in view of the fact that many members on this side of this House, in fact all of us, wish the right hon. gentleman many more happy years-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -can the minister assure the House that he is prepared to waive this foolish policy so that the birthplace of this distinguished former prime minister will not be lost to future generations of Canadians?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary for the

March 24, 1977
Oral Questions
government to recognize and preserve historic sites on the recommendation of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board. This is an independent board and we deal with their recommendations. I suggest that the hon. member approach the board to see whether they want to recognize this particular site.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of reports that the Metric Commission is now using a television show to promote metric conversion, can the minister state how the government can expect Canadian taxpayers to have confidence in its so-called restraint program when the Metric Commission spends $60,000 to have a comedian try to put the metric system across on television as a joke, further adding insult to injury?
Hon. Len Marc hand (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen these particular ads but I will have a look at the matter. We are using all kinds of means to make certain that the Canadian public knows about metric conversion and that it is a good program for us to follow for the future.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has opposition to certain parts of the metric system backed the commission into a corner which is causing it to resort to metric funnies as a last stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The first question was argumentative enough. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the petition to the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs signed by 127 foreign service secretaries in Ottawa who are protesting the appraisal promotion system being used in the department. Has this matter been brought to the attention of the minister, and is he looking into it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention in an informal way. The Undersecretary has been absent from Ottawa for the last 10 days. I have not seen him since his return but I am sure that I will be doing so very shortly and undoubtedly this will be one of the matters we will discuss. I must confess that beyond that I do not have any personal response which I can give to the hon. member at this time.


Walter David Baker: One brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The brief-and perhaps the minister might direct his attention to it-condemns the appraisal system in the sense that it acts contrary to the guidelines set out in the departmental policy paper on equal opportunities for women. When the minister is looking at it I wonder whether he would have particular reference to the applicability of the guidelines and how they may be offended by present departmental policies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to do that.
[ Translation]


SUGGESTED DELEGATION TO WASHINGTON TO EXPLAIN SEAL HUNT CONDITIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Albert  Bichard@Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is supplementary to that of the hon. member for St. John's East. It is rather a representation.
If the minister were to send a delegation to Washington to explain to the Senate and to the members of the U.S. Congress the very humane nature of the seal hunt in Canada, particularly in eastern Canada, at the Magdalen Islands and in Newfoundland, could he include in this delegation the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry who is also the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine so that he can give more details to the senators and members of congress?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


John R. Rodriguez: Just be quiet.


Walter David Baker: He has been having speech lessons.


John R. Rodriguez: I have been talking to the unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 24, 1977


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


John R. Rodriguez: I am now talking to the insensitive. In view of the fact that a recent judgment was made by an umpire of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Federal Court Judge Frank Collier, who ruled that section 46 of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act contravenes the Canadian Bill of Rights, in view of the fact that Justice Collier awarded benefits to Mrs. Stella Bliss who had appealed her disentitlement under sections 46 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act, and in view of the fact that the commission is appealing this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, is the minister prepared to instruct the commission to withdraw the appeal?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: One supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that discrimination between members of the same class is illegal under the Bill of Rights, is the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission prepared to introduce the necessary amendments to sections 30 and 46 so that women will be entitled to receive all benefits to which other members of the work force are entitled, plus special benefits to cover the period immediately surrounding the birth of a child?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have received the hon member's representation, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance whether he would advise the House if, in conformity with customary practice, he is intending to table the economic reports and surveys that the Department of Finance makes prior to delivery of a budget. If so, when does he expect to make these available prior to March 31?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the budget date this year is a little in advance of the time when the economic review, as it is described, is normally available. Therefore, I am not in a position to do that. In lieu of that I hope to accompany the budget statement with a document which would cover much of the same ground that the economic review will do a little later.	.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that it is almost inevitable that the budget debate may be split into two
Oral Questions
periods, does the minister envisage that he will be able to table those documents for at least part of the budget debate?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will have to check on the time table, and I will be glad to do that.


POSSIBILITY OF STUDIES ON EFFECTS OF SACCHARIN ON HUMANS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS PRIOR TO IMPOSING BAN
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Minister of National Health and Welfare back to the House and say that we thought he might have been in Toronto today with his colleague, Senator Lamontagne, helping to sell Conservative principles to the meeting there.
I should like to put a question to the minister regarding saccharin. Having banned saccharin in a rather precipitous fashion to the extent that three of his own Liberal colleagues questioned him in the House the other day, would the minister try to regain his credibility with the public, the health professions, the industry and his own colleagues, by indicating to the House what retrospective and prospective studies he has authorized or has done on the effects of saccharin on humans?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, decisions have been made in that field following studies which have been confirmed by international and American authorities. I would suggest to the hon. member that he not be overly impressed by a decidedly American lobbying organization which has more than $1 million at its disposal to rally public opinion against this decision.


Bruce Halliday: I thank the minister for his answer. We had hoped he would have started some studies on human beings.
In view of the seriousness of the possible dangers of saccharin for humans and the equally potential danger of side effects from increased use of sugar, can the minister indicate why he chose to implement the ban without having obtained well in advance official opinions from the governing and elected bodies or organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Dental Association and the Canadian Diabetic Association?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been held with each one of the associations mentioned by the hon. member but decisions in that area come under government authorities and I did take it as Minister of National Health and Welfare upon advise from experts in my department and from outside experts who have been consulted. About that matter, the hon. member should read over closely the testimo-

March 24, 1977
Oral Questions
ny that Dr. Morrison gave this morning before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which the hon. member attended and where arguments advocated against this decision were, I believe, refuted with great competence and in a very explicit way.


Bruce Halliday: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


SACCHARIN-STUDY TO DETERMINE SAFE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF CONSUMPTION FOR HUMANS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: In view of the fact that a large number of Canadians will probably continue to use saccharin added to food, would the minister indicate whether he has instructed his department or ordered any further studies to be carried out to determine whether there is a safe maximum level of saccharin consumption, considering that his research project has been criticized on the basis of the fact that very high doses had been administered to rats?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the head of the Health Protection Branch gave very clear evidence on this subject this morning. According to the World Health Organization, a security level could be one part per 5,000 in such tests. As a matter of fact, we reduced the ratio to one part per 800, and at this level we still noticed some cancer. Therefore there is no doubt now in the minds of experts that the decision arrived at was largely justified.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to Boris Domazet, an employee of the Department of Manpower and Immigration who first came to that department in May of 1973. During his time of employment with that department he has exposed a number of irregular practices within the department. I should like to ask the minister whether Mr. Domazet has been suspended as of today, and if that is the case, what were the reasons for that suspension?


An hon. Member:: Was he on the black list like Rudnicki?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: Why are you laughing?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The joke that came from over there was pretty funny. As of March 24, 1977 Mr. Domazet has been suspended without pay pending an investigation of his alleged public

criticism of the department and the release of confidential information to unauthorized persons in contravention of the code of conduct guidelines for the public service.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to ask the minister whether he can confirm details of that suspension today, namely, that Mr. Domazet had granted an interview to a press man who had declared himself to security at the Department of Immigration and that a security officer of the department not only ended that interview but also raided personal possessions including the briefcase of Mr. Domazet. If this is not in violation of privacy, can the minister explain whether those activities are in keeping with human rights and departmental practices?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not familiar with those particular details.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Nor with certain deportation orders.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the Minister of Transport to his reply to my question concerning government pressure on CPA, as reported in Hansard of March 21. Assuming the sincerity of the minister's reply, which reads:
Mr. Speaker, most certainly the government has no intention of taking any action to interfere with that or other private airlines. Indeed, our action has consistently been to try to improve the atmosphere in which the airlines function, and I wish the hon. member would appreciate that fact.
Will the minister tell the House why the government negotiated Air Canada into 14 of the 17 U.S. routes in the U.S.-Canada bilateral agreement by trading off the traditional prairie and trans-Pacific traffic of Canadian Pacific Airlines to U.S. airlines?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: In view of the long time which has elapsed since all that happened, I would be delighted to answer that question in another forum.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am wondering if the minister would also give consideration to why Air Canada, an eastern based airline, got the Calgary-San Francisco run starting in 1978 instead of Canadian Pacific Airlines, a western based airline, and is the minister prepared to review the whole matter of the U.S.-Canada bilateral air agreement in a constructive atmosphere?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly not treat any airline as being a western or an eastern airline but rather as being good Canadian companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, when routes were being examined and allocated consideration was given to the balance position of
March 24, 1977

various airlines and the question of the broad policy between the two airlines did arise. As 1 said to the hon. member a moment ago, all this happened rather long ago and I wonder if the hon. member has nothing more recent to worry about.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It is with respect to the very serious imbalance in the inventory of available office space on government property, particularly in the Ottawa-Hull region. Can the minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to address itself to this serious problem and divest itself of surplus office space? Is it the intention of the government also to check the balance in the new construction of office space particularly in line with the policy of decentralization and restraint?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with the Minister of Public Works.


Frank Oberle: Since the Minister of Public Works does not have a system of control of vacant office space but is merely acting as a real estate agent, could the President of the Treasury Board assure us, in view of the fact that it is five years ago that the government made the decision to build all these new buildings and that since that time it has embarked on several programs, particularly the programs of decentralization and restraint, it is his intention to slow down any new construction and divest the government of available surplus office space?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that.


REASON FOR BANNING USE OF SACCHARIN WHEN NO ACTION TAKEN ON OTHER TOXIC AGENTS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to earlier questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the banning of saccharin. In view of the fact that we have a very serious problem related to mercury to which, I remind the minister, we devoted an opposition day, a serious problem with respect to arsenic, about which the minister attempted to defend government inaction in an article in the Globe and Mail by indicating there was no evidence of humans being affected in Yellowknife and problems with respect to asbestos, lead and numerous other chemicals which are known to impair health and to have
Oral Questions
caused deaths, I would like to ask the minister how he justifies his action to ban saccharin based on rat studies with no evidence of human involvement and yet refuses to take action on mercury, arsenic, asbestos and other toxic agents which are known to cause human illness and death.


An hon. Member:: You are basing your policy on rats.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member will be very short. He clearly did not even bother to read the numerous press releases which I have issued. Specific action has been taken and well documented over the last two years.
With regard to the first question raised by the hon. member I can only recommend that he read the transcript of the testimony before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs this morning. If he would do so, he would get a full answer to his question.


John Robert Holmes: If the minister really believes that answer, he is either living in a land of make believe or refusing to address himself to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: In view of the obvious inconsistency of ministerial decisions regarding environmental health matters in which the minister ignores problems affecting health and yet takes precipitous action which will affect thousands of Canadian consumers who use saccharin, can the minister outline the criteria or the guidelines used by the government which gave rise to this incredible policy which has destroyed the minister's credibility, but more importantly which reveals the need for a responsible environmental health program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member can expect me to give a full answer in the question period to the question he has raised. The main estimates of my department are presently before the committee. Just this morning I was before the parliamentary committee, and I will be there again on Tuesday next. We can debate this matter as long as the hon. member wants to, but I do not think he is helping his case or the health of the people of this country by making statements like the one he just made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
Mr. Speaker:: I know that all hon. members will want to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor, that distinguished visitor being the Lebanese parliamentarian who at the beginning of 1976 was elected

March 24, 1977
Business of the House
Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Mr. Edouard Saouma.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader the usual question about the business of the House.


Mr. MacEachen:: At the outset I would like to ask Your Honour to designate, in accordance with Standing Order 60, an order of the day for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Finance to make a budget presentation at 8 p.m. on Thursday, March 31, 1977.
The business for today is known to hon. members. It is the interim supply bill. Tomorrow we will deal with the report stage of the bill on metric conversion, and on Monday we will deal with the motion in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Mr. McCleave:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has waited very patiently and has co-operated very well in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Following Monday we shall deal with the metric conversion bill and the unemployment insurance bill. I should like to mention that with respect to tomorrow's business, namely, the report stage of the metric conversion bill, in the unlikely event that divisions may be called, there has been consultation with the understanding that any such division would be deferred until Monday of next week. Therefore, it would be useful to have an order to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council with respect to deferred divisions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to defer certain votes if they are called, because such a request was made by the government in view of the fact that a Liberal conference is being held in Toronto today and tomorrow. In view of the report over CBC last night to the effect that this is a "think" conference, the first in 17 years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It's about time they started to think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I wonder if the minister plans to bring in a bill to require that any party which is in government ought to do some thinking at least once every five years.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two days ago the Minister of Communications tabled Bill C-43. Since then we have been attempting to get extra copies of the bill so we could study it. But they are as hard to find as hen's teeth. I think even the Minister of Agriculture has trouble finding hen's teeth. It is ironic that someone who specializes in communications cannot produce enough copies of the bill for us to study it. I would like to register a complaint about that.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge copies are available to hon. members. I will check into this. I certainly want hon. members to have copies of the bill.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Anderson.
(Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)

Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to announce today a federal government initiative for the young people of our country in the form of a year-round travel exchange program developed in the Department of the Secretary of State. The program will be based on the principle of twinning and, when fully operational, will involve between 20,000 and 30,000 young people per year.
Hon. members will recall that in the last Speech from the Throne on October 12, 1976, the government committed itself to federal initiatives designed specifically for youth. My department's new travel exchange program, to be known as "Open House Canada/Hospitalite Canada", is one component of these initiatives. Information on other projects will be available within the coming month. Our new program will enable young people, both individually and in groups, to participate in exchange visits with others across the country. In taking this initiative, the government is responding directly to the young people of Canada. We have all seen examples of youth taking such initiatives on their own, assuming the burden of the cost of these initiatives, and in so doing demon-
March 24, 1977

strating to the rest of us how much they care about their country and that they would like to get to know it better.
I am also aware of the valuable contributions made for many years in the area of youth exchanges by voluntary organizations. It is our intention to continue to work closely with them to achieve our common goals.
[ Translation]
I have also noted a kind of tacit agreement in the press and in the House to the effect that some people would like us to promote further visits and exchanges among Canadians. The Commissioner of Official Languages has often complained about the fact that many Canadians know the United States and Europe better than some parts of their own country, especially the areas where another language is spoken.
"Open House Canada/Hospitalite Canada" is designed for the generation that will produce our leaders in the decades to come. Those participating as individuals will be from 16 to 22 years of age and those participating in groups will be from 14 to 22 years of age. Their transportation costs will be paid by the federal government but each traveller will be expected to pay a small participation fee.
The mechanics of the program, although not yet worked out in fine detail, will proceed along the following lines: young Canadians interested in participating will apply to a central bureau where they will be matched with an individual or group from another province. Once the twinning is established, the participants will be encouraged to have exploratory correspondence and other types of exchanges with each other in order to establish rapport and then eventually to visit each other in their homes. Further details will be available in a month, and application forms for those who wish to participate will be ready in June.

While we put the emphasis on mutual exchanges among participants, the program does provide allowances for individuals or groups who would take part only as visitors or as hosts. [English]
The aim of the program, then, is to create an encouraging environment for what we look upon as an extremely desirable national purpose: the year around discovery of Canada by the young people of our country. By removing the cost barriers involved in travel, we feel we shall not only be encouraging, but also challenging young Canadians to do something for the unity of their country.

Through that program we hope to encourage a dialogue and a closer understanding among Canadians, especially among those who speak English or French, as well as between the regions and provinces giving an opportunity to the young people to get acquainted with a new style of living and environment.
Open House Canada

In concluding, may I say that I am convinced Canada's reputation around the world for openness and hospitality is deserved. We are now offering an opportunity for Canadians to be open and hospitable to each other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister personally, and on behalf of this party, for his courtesy in sending us the statement earlier. I should also like to thank him, on behalf of parliament, for making the announcement in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: If I could, editorialize-and I will, even if I should not-it is an all too rare quality in ministers and obviously shows that he has been one of us in the not too distant past.


Benno Friesen: He is still a beginner.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He is enough of a beginner to know that when he has important things to say, he says them here and not in Vancouver or somewhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am also very glad that the statement has come within a day or two of a rather extraordinary statement about a bilingual program which affected only two of the ten provinces and two territories-a program of Ontario-Quebec travel. Obviously, the minister has recognized, a day or two late, that there is more to Canada than his province of Ontario or the great province of Quebec. I am glad this program has been redressed.
A few years ago there was an anguished cry in the United States-"What have they done to our children?" It was made in times of frustration in American national life. I am anxious that such an anguished cry will never be heard in this country, because we will have done something for our young people. Unhappily, though, the rather interesting initiatives and travel plans are not matched-and I mean this as a positive criticism-with initiatives by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the 350,000 Canadians under 25 years of age who have nothing to do, who are out of work. What I am really saying is that if the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) has an initiative for the young, the Department of Manpower and Immigration must gear up and pay particular attention to Canadians under 25 years of age who are seeking work.
This particular week is a rather opportune time for the minister to make his statement. The galleries are often filled, because of school breaks in various provinces and because of a rather imaginative program run by a volunteer organization which brings young people from the high schools of Canada into the capital. I do not want to be preachy or self-righteous, but I think the fact that we have visitors this week, and the fact that the minister has said there will be other visitors all

March 24, 1977
Open House Canada
through the year puts a special onus on us as members of parliament. In a way, we are on exhibit here: the way we respond, our sensitivities, and so on, will be marked and carefully analysed, I hope, by those who do us the honour of sitting in the galleries this week and in years to come.
The young Canadians who are travelling may well be our sons and daughters. They will not be mine, because mine have travelled and are now young men and women. I cannot help but say that I hope, as we extend hospitality, we will not shut doors to people because their costumes may not be the same as we would travel in, or their hair might be a different length. In other words, if young people travelling wear jeans and have a pack on their backs, the hospitality program should be aware that this is the dress and mode of the young today.
I have never got over the fact that somebody told me once that when they saw someone on the road hitchhiking who wore blue jeans, they called the RCMP. My horrified response was that the person in jeans who was hitchhiking might be my son or daughter. I know the minister wants to think that in a hospitality program we welcome the young in their various modes of dress and with their various concerns, which I very much hope will not be identical to those of us who are part of this "splendid" status quo.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the minister for sending an advance copy of the statement. We in the New Democratic Party welcome this initiative by the minister to assist young people in exchanging visits in all parts of the country. I think we should have had more of this in the past than has been our experience.
I think, too, that with the high rate of unemployment among young people-about double the national rate-a lot of young people will have plenty of time on their hands this summer to take advantage of the program. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) noted, it is unfortunate that we can find initiatives in the Department of the Secretary of State to meet the needs of young people but cannot find the same degree of commitment in the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I think the federal initiative should be looked at carefully by all the provinces, and I hope we will see some initiatives at the provincial level as well in terms of exchanges between the regions of Canada.
The minister's statement is not precise in some details, and I should like to raise some questions. I am concerned about the selection process, and just who will be chosen. I should like to make sure there is a built-in mechanism to guarantee as broad a representation as possible. Not only should we have people participating from large and small urban centres, but they should be from the rural areas as well. There should also be some guarantee that it will not be just one particular income group that will receive the benefit. I hope there will be some form of proportional representation in that regard.

I hope that one of the conditions of eligibility will be a guarantee by the young people involved that they will take part in follow-up programs, so to speak, after their visits are over. In this way they could share their experiences and knowledge. Perhaps they could report to fellow students in schools, seek out the local media in their communities and ask them to report and appear before service clubs and other interested groups.
In conclusion, I welcome the initiative. We want to know more of the details. Let me echo the sentiments of the late Governor General, Georges Vanier who in his 1967 New Year's message said that one of the strengths of this country was its diversity; that we should open the doors and windows of the provinces so that we could see one another, meet one another, share our experiences and so promote understanding and unity. I hope this program will in some small way fulfil the wish of our late and distinguished Governor General, Georges Vanier.


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today the Secretary of State is launching a program of a permanent nature through which young Canadians of 14 to 22 are being invited, individually or in groups, to take part in exchange visits throughout Canada. It will be remembered that a similar program of exchanges already exists between Quebec and Ontario. I am of course very happy with the praiseworthy initiative of extending the program throughout Canada. I feel that it is even desirable. As a youth, I myself was able to take part in a similar program, though its purposes were different. The young people in eastern Canada were encouraged to go and help bring in the crops out west; all they had to reimburse was $10 for their travelling expenses.
We were paid to harvest the crops. Of course we were working but for myself and the other young people of my age it was a very enriching experience. It is essential for each young Canadian to get a better knowledge of his country and of the desires, the problems and the views of others in all provinces. We never know enough about our own country. So I wish to thank the minister for having given such importance to the commitment made in the last Speech from the Throne last October 12. However, I have some reservations based on our experience with similar programs. An excellent program is often smothered and thwarted by a heavy, slow and inefficient bureaucracy which ignores the wishes clearly expressed by the citizen, young or not so young, who wants to benefit from a government program.
As usual, hon. members are informed of the major aspects of a government project which seems excellent in principle, but what will happen in practice? Civil servants are the only ones who know, for instance the members of the future secretariate announced today by the minister. The population must realize the fact that when members of parliament vote for a program generally proposed by a minister, they do not vote on rules, requirements or selection criteria. The whole implementation
Marth 24, 1977

of a program is the sole responsibility of bureaucracy. Members of parliament have nothing to say on that matter.
This is why we can say today that the intention seems excellent. The objective is supported by every member of the Social Credit Party. Our party believes that Canada should be better understood and we must encourage any program that will allow our fellow citizens, particularly young Canadians, to gain a better insight of the real dimensions of their country. In doing this we might have fewer extremists on one side or the other or in one province or the other. Through a better knowledge of Canada by future generations, politicians in general might stop trying to benefit from divisions among us in Canada, owing to the vigilance of those future Canadian adults.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The rules with respect to ministerial statements under which we operate give the Chair a great deal of discretion with respect to questions following a statement. It is apparent that the minister's statement, the details of which are to follow later, has aroused no disagreement. Hon. members, obviously, do not disagree with it. Therefore, I do not propose to allow a great deal of questioning. However, I note that the hon. members for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), for Battle River (Mr. Malone), for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), and for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) are interested in putting questions. I ask them to be brief.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall ask my questions slowly in order to allow the minister to make notes. He indicated that the applications will be ready in June. Is it intended, after these applications have been processed, to let the exchanges take place in July and August this year when students will be out of school and our youth unemployment is the highest in our history. For how long will the exchange students be away? Will their visits last a week, two weeks, one month, or perhaps even two months? Could the minister be more specific? Also, can he say how many young people he hopes will be involved. He is under a budgetary limitation, I am sure-I do not know if it is $1,000, $3,000 or even $10,000 per student. Does the minister at present expect the program to continue each year, say for the next five years, or will it be in place only this year and perhaps next year?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I can reply briefly to the perceptive questions of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I mentioned June as the month when applications will be available, and we hope strongly that the exchange will begin in the summer, in July and August. Perhaps the initial exchanges will involve groups rather than individuals because of the longer lead time we may need to establish procedures for the placing of individuals who may wish to make visits back and forth from one part of the country to another.
To answer the hon. member's second question, the program is designed to support travel costs. Its purpose is not to assist tourism-let me put it that way. It is designed to establish an
Open House Canada
exchange of views and contacts between individuals in different parts of the country. We shall be considering some requirement for a minimum length of stay which could be perhaps a week. If individuals wish to stay longer-for two or three weeks or one month-that would not affect the travel cost portion of the government's participation. The travel costs will remain the same, no matter how long people stay. There would need to be a minimum time requirement, but the length of the visit can be extended for a considerable period since that would not affect the cost of the government's participation.
I cannot say how many people will be involved in the program. We shall be able to assess numbers in the light of demand, But we believe, initially, that when the program becomes fully operational it will involve between 20,000 and
30.000	young people a year.
It is intended to continue the program indefinitely although, of course, in light of our experience we may refine, alter or change it. Experience may indicate some better ways of meeting our objectives. In initial terms, we are not thinking so much of a dollar figure as of the participation of between
20.000	and 30,000 young people between the ages of 14 and
22.


Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the return of the spirit of centennial year in the form of some of the programs initiated for that year-after an unfortunate lapse. Can the minister tell us if other programs of this kind will be announced in time for older people to be involved in interprovincial exchanges this summer? Too many good things in life have been reserved for the young. Under the former exchange programs there were opportunities for adult groups and families to get to know their fellow Canadians in other provinces. I wonder if there soon will be an announcement to extend the scope of this program to people other than the young, even though I think the minister has started in the right place.
In addition to organized programs, is the minister considering, as well, less structured schemes whereby families can travel the country? Particularly at a time when we are trying to encourage rail traffic, perhaps once a year each family in Canada might have the privilege of travelling to another province by rail at no cost. It would simply reduce the subsidies that this government will have to pay to the new Via Rail system. Why not a Via Rail visa for every family in Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I see my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) applauding. He, obviously, would like to take advantage of extending the program to those other than the young. He is youthful in spirit but would not, under the present age limits of this program, be eligible for a twinning arrangement. The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) really anticipated in his second question my response to his first. The orientation of this program is specifically, as I indicated, for young people be-

March 24, 1977
Open House Canada
tween the ages of 14 and 22 or 16 and 22 on individual exchanges.
We did consider the possibilities of finding some means of assisting with the transportation costs of young people and their families, or within the context of their families, in an exchange or twinning arrangement. That is, indeed, an intriguing and interesting idea. We felt that at the present time there were certain administrative difficulties to such a plan. We felt we could not wait until we had ironed out all those difficulties before proceeding with the steps I described in the House today. This is a matter upon which we will continue to reflect.
Without in any way making a commitment, I would say that this is a subject we will consider, in light of our experience with the program, to see whether some extension toward families may be contemplated some time later, probably in subsequent years rather than this year.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the minister on initiating this program. I want to ask two brief questions. The first is whether this will be a continuing program. We had an excellent exchange program. I know that groups of high school students from my province visited the province of Quebec, and students from the province of Quebec came to stay in the homes and visit the communities from which I come. There has been an ongoing correspondence ever since, which is of great benefit. Unfortunately, the program was stopped. Is this likely to be an ongoing program, or a one-shot deal? Second, will groups, particularly groups of students who make application, be able to arrange exchange programs so that the young people they visit will make reciprocal visits in order to see each other in their home territory?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is "yes". The program is envisaged as a continuing one. It is not intended that it should expire after one year, or be, as the hon. member terms it, a one-shot program. We are looking at a continuing program of government. Yes, indeed, groups of students will be eligible. The essence of the program is to adopt the idea the hon. member expressed in his question, that is to say, there should be an exchange.
One's ability to take advantage of the program and visit a student, or a particular group of students to visit another group of students, will depend upon willingness to accept, in return, a visit from that individual or group. There may be a few exceptions to that principle in the application of the program. There may be some people who will be hosts and who will not feel they are able to go on a subsequent visit. But the general theme of the program will be on the basis of twinning; that is to say, that people will be accepted as eligible under the program to visit another part of the country if they will in turn accept a reciprocal visit.
While I am on my feet, I should indicate to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) that I welcome his support. Indeed, I welcome the support indicated by all parties in the House. This is not a partisan or party measure. It is one which responds to the wishes of all parties and all members of

the House. I welcome the support for the program. I hope hon. members will do what they can to make the program effective and tell young people about it.
I should say that the concerns which the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie raised about how people will be chosen, and whether this will be a program which will meet only the needs of a narrow segment of the population, are concerns we had. We are determined to ensure that it covers a broad range of social and economic status, geographical representation, and so on. There should be a continual method of follow-up.
It is not, as I said earlier, a tourism program. It is designed to share human contact, exchange and understanding on a continuing basis.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to pay tribute to the minister for introducing this legislation. I find it noteworthy for a country as diverse as Canada. While I very much appreciate the spirit of what the minister is attempting to do, there is a bit of conflict in relation to something that is already going on. The minister mentioned the value of the cultural exchange, something none of us would deny. However, at the present time there is an international exchange going on in Alberta, particularly with Scandinavian families and their host families back home. It has been going on for about a decade. I would point out that an airplane of Scandinavian people landing in this country at the international airport in Edmonton were unable to get off the airplane because the federal government had not completed its paperwork. About a year ago they were about to get on an airplane in a Scandinavian country-I believe in Oslo- but the paperwork was not done.
In talking to the people who have been putting these exchanges together, each successive one has been a series of continuing roadblocks. I will supply the minister with further information because I know he needs greater detail with regard to this. First, will the minister review the whole matter of this international exchange of people going to work in other countries? Second, will he bypass the representation he is getting directly, and talk to the families who have been hosting these exchanges for a long period of time about the value they think the program has, so that he can have direct input and representation from them on what they consider to be an extremely important international exchange?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising the point. I will await the information which he is sending to me. I am not aware, specifically, of the program he has mentioned, nor am I aware of the difficulties which have been encountered in relation to it. From his description, I am not sure whether those difficulties really relate to my jurisdiction. They may relate to external affairs or immigration. When the hon. member sends me details of the problem which these families have faced, I will ensure they are brought to the attention of the proper minister to be looked into and, I hope, settled.
I must say, with frankness, to the hon. member that the purpose of this exchange is not set within the international
March 24, 1977

context. It is to encourage young Canadians to get to know one another better and to get to know parts of Canada better. I have often been disturbed to find that Canadians know other countries better than their own. For example, people in my city of Toronto often find it easier to take holidays in Florida, or Europe, than to take holidays in Canada in areas such as that represented by the hon. member. A way should be found to get them to know one another as well, and to know other parts of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In addition to the hon. members I said I would recognize, I see three hon. members who seek the floor. In fairness, and to be consistent with previous practices and in keeping with my previous arrangement, I will have to stop the questioning. This is a rather important supply day and a special procedure for going to committee of the whole.
It is a rather important point, because I indicated earlier that I have to exercise discretion with respect to these questions. Other questions, for information purposes, could be brought to the attention of the minister directly. I really think we ought to get on with orders of the day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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 fbllowing questions will be answered today: 1,060, 1,331., 1,696 1,780, 1,804,
I,	863, 1,864, 1,885, 1,886, 1,911, 1,943, 1,952 and 1,977.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What items, buildings or other equipment were repaired or maintained by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b)1975-76?
2.	In each case, what was the nature of the breakdown, malfunction or condition of the item and what were the repairs or maintenance?
3.	In each case, what was the original value of the item?
4.	In each case, what was the expected life span of the item before the repairs or maintenance and what is the expected life of the item subsequent to the repairs or maintenance?
5.	For what reason was the repair or maintenance not foreseen at the time of the presentation of the 1975-76 main estimates, resulting in an expenditure of
II,	666.7% over the estimates and also the previous year?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 to 4. To obtain the requested detailed information would entail a very costly procedure in terms of man-hours and research required.
5. The government policy on cost of office accommodation for the year 1975/76 has been changed to be reflected in the
Order Paper Questions
department's main estimates instead of the Department of Public Works' main estimates. The change in policy was made after the deadline date to submit main estimates. Consequently, this amount of money had to be requested through supplementary estimates.


Mr. Jones: Is Quebec getting the largest share of the Loto Canada money and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The government of Quebec receives its province's share of Loto Canada's net revenues as stipulated by the passage of Bill C-94 on June 22, 1976: "an amount not to exceed 12.5 percent of the credit of the National Lottery Account, to the government of each province, in proportion to the number of tickets sold by Loto Canada Inc. in each province..." As the province with the largest number of ticket sales, Quebec, therefore, receives the largest share of these net revenues. The Regie des Installations Olympiques receives its share of Loto Canada's net revenues as stipulated by the passage of Bill C-94: "an amount not to exceed 82.5 percent of the amount to the credit of the National Lottery Account, subject to any directions that are from time to time given by order of the Governor in Council, to (a) the Regie des Installations Olympiques to assist in the financing of the deficit of the 1976 Olympic Games; and (b) the XI Commonwealth Games Canada (1978) Foundation to assist in the financing of the 1978 Commonwealth Games."


Mr. Howie: 1.	What was the total cost of the 1977 Post Office Calendar?
2.	Was the job put out for tender and, if so, who was awarded the job?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Total cost of the 1977 Post Office calendar is $112,000. Earlier figures released (No. 1,296 answered on February 2, 1977) indicated the cost as just under $117,000; however, certain austerity moves managed to reduce costs.
2.	Yes, the job was put out for tender through Department of Supply and Services. It was awarded to Lawson Graphics Ltd., Toronto.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	What are the projected immigration statistics for (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980 (e) 1981 under the proposed Immigration Bill and the Minister's new regulations and what is a breakdown of the total by country of origin or geographic area?
2 What are the projected immigration statistics for the Greater Vancouver Regional District for (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980 (e) 1981 by country of origin or geographic area?

March 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) For 1977, the level of interest abroad combined with labour market factors in Canada tends to indicate that total immigration for the year may be a little lower than it was in 1976, when 149,249 immigrants were landed in Canada, (b),
(c), (d), (e) Under the proposed Immigration Bill currently before Parliament, Section 7 states "The Minister, after consultation with the provinces concerning regional demographic needs and labour market considerations and after consultation with such other persons, organizations and institutions as he deems appropriate, shall announce annually the number of immigrants that the Government of Canada deems it appropriate to admit during any specified period of time". The consultations process referred to in Section 7 will not take place until such time as the Bill receives Royal Assent. As a result, there
are no estimates or projections available regarding the volume, source or distribution of immigrants that will arrive in Canada in the years 1978 onward.
2.	(a) There have been no projections regarding immigration by source region or destination in Canada for the year 1977.
(b), (c), (d), (e) Please see answer to 1 (b), (c), (d), (e).


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	What was the amount of money (a) initially allocated (b) made available under the second allocation to each province under the LIP Programme?
2.	What was the amount finally approved for each province?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1- (a)	l.(b)		2.
			Increase or	
Initial	Supplementary	Decrease after	FinalProvince	Allocation	Allocation	Redistribution	AllocationNewfoundland	$ 7,718,000	$10,097,000	$3,296,900	$ 21,111,900Nova Scotia	3,707,000	6,340,000	416,057	10,463,057Prince Edward Island	1,638,000	1,460,000	74,000	3,172,000New Brunswick	7,701,000	9,888,000	-965,290	16,623,710Quebec	28,991,000	38,562,000	1,976,636	69,529,636Ontario	16,305,000	13,678,000	-1,654,529	28,328,471Manitoba	2,449,000	2,233,000	312,480	4,994,480Saskatchewan	1,784,000	1,263,000	-556,408	2,490,592Alberta	1,798,000	730,000	388,464	2,916,464North West Territory	535,000	588,000	-176,223	946,777British Columbia	16,171,000	12,828,000	-2,735,109	26,263,891Yukon	303,000	333,000	-94,662	541,338Totals	$89,100,000	$98,000,000	$282,316	$187,382,316Note: This information refers to the 1976-77 Local Initiatives Program.


Mr. Yewchuk: When new islands arise in (a) Hudson Bay (b) Ungava Bay (c) the Labrador Sea, as a result of isostatic rebound, under whose jurisdiction do they come, Canada or the nearest province?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: No islands have arisen in (a) Hudson Bay, (b) Ungava Bay, (c) the Labrador Sea, as a result of isostatic rebound. Therefore, no information on jurisdiction is available at this time.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,605, does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources promote the concept that temperature comfort levels depend on a combination of the heat levels and humidity levels?
2.	Does the Minister believe that economies can be affected in winter by increasing humidity levels with corresponding reductions in the setting of the thermostat?
3.	Does the Department intend to promote the use of dehumidification systems in summer as a means of reducing the consumption of fuel for air cooling purposes?
[Mr. Wenman.J


Maurice Dupras: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. The effectiveness of humidity in allowing lower temperature settings is uncertain. The equipment guide (1972) of the American society of heating refrigeration and air conditioning engineers states the following: Human Comfort. The effect of relative humidity on all aspects of human comfort has not as yet been completely established. From the standpoint of thermal comfort, it has usually been assumed that higher temperatures are required to offset the effect of decreased relative humidity. This is exemplified by the effective temperature lines of the basic ASHRAE Comfort Chart, which was developed through studies of the immediate reaction of people entering a conditioned space. More recent studies based on the reactions of subjects after several hours' exposure to the controlled environment have suggested that relative humidity has a negligible or much smaller effect on the sensation of warmth. These results apply to lightly clothed subjects engaged in light activities. The effects of relative humidity on the comfort of people engaged in moderate to high levels of activity have not been carefully re-examined, but it may be assumed that relative humidity will have a marked influence under conditions of sweating. Low relative humidity may well be undesirable for reasons other
March 24, 1977

than those based on thermal comfort. Low levels will no doubt lead to increased evaporation from the membranes of the nose and throat, and to drying of the skin and hair. Some medical opinion attributes the increased incidence of respiratory complaints to drying out of the mucous membranes due to low humidities indoors in winter. However, no well documented evidence appears to have been presented which would indicate a serious hazard to health resulting from exposure of people to low humidity conditions. In spite of lack of complete information, it seems logical to assume that extremes of humidity are undesirable and that, for human comfort, relative humidities should be kept within a broad range of 30 to 60 percent."
2.	The benefits of humidification are not fully documented. Note response to first question.
3.	No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the total estimated annual quantity of imported oil used for electrical generation and what is the estimated quantity of electricity generated by this means?
2.	What was the total quantity of electricity exported in the last year for which figures are available?
3.	Is any tariff applied to exported electricity?


Maurice Dupras: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. In 1975, electric utilities in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces generated 5,948 GWH of electricity from 12,328 thousand barrels of imported oil. In addition, there was a further 5,214 thousand barrels of oil used by industry to generate electricity in 1974, the latest available data.
2.	In 1975, Canada exported 11,425 GWH of electricity.
3.	Electricity exports are licenced by the National Energy Board but there is no tariff applied.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the discussions concerning the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital to the provincial government, what agreements have been sought to guarantee the continuing employment of unilingual English employees?
2.	How many unilingual English employees are presently employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs at this hospital?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	The question of continuing employment for unilingual English employees following the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital has not been discussed with provincial authorities other than to have it included as an agenda item for a future meeting.
2.	Approximately 50 continuing employees are unilingual English.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: Is it the intention, in the agreement of transfer to the provincial government of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, to include a guarantee that the terms and conditions of employment of transferred federal employees be no less favourable than those enjoyed while the public servants were in the federal service and, if so, how will it apply to the benefits of the Public Service Superannuation Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is the intention, in the agreement of transfer, to ensure that terms and conditions of employment of transferred staff are globally the same before and after transfer. Discussions respecting a superannuation plan are under way; no conclusions have been reached.


Mr. Herbert: Under the agreement of transfer to the provincial government of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal, will there be continuing provision of out-patient service to veterans and, if not, will the Department of Veterans Affairs be providing this service elsewhere and, if so, what are the details?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The terms of an agreement to transfer Queen Mary Veterans Hospital have not been finalized. Appropriate arrangements for out-patient services will be a subject for discussion with the Provincial Authorities.


Mr. Johnston: What was the total amount spent on advertising for phase one of Canada Works in the Constituency of Okanagan-Kootenay, including newspapers, radio and any other medium?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Radio, $9,072; Dailies, 7,427; Weeklies, 3,288; Total, $19,787.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	What were the total costs included in the 1975-76 estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for telephone equipment and services and other related communications devices?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) equipment rentals (b) professional and special services (c) purchased repair and upkeep of equipment (d) charges on other than local communications (e) materials and supplies (0 other costs?
3.	What is the total forecasted expenditure for 1976-77?
4.	How are such forecast expenditures divided between (a) equipment rentals (b) professional and special services (c) purchased repair and upkeep of equipment (d) charges on other than local communications (e) materials and supplies (0 other costs?
5.	What amount of damages were sustained to telephone equipment and other related communications devices in the Department in 1975-76?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	$6,719,888.

March 24, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) $4,412,836; (b) nil; (c) equipment is on rental; (d) $2,307,052 (e) information not available; (0 nil.
3.	$6,245,386.
4.	(a) $4,153,189; (b) nil; (c) equipment is on rental; (d) $2,092,197; (e) information not available; (0 nil.
5.	Nil.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many golf professionals are presently registered with the Department of Manpower and Immigration as seeking employment?
2.	How many are presently drawing unemployment insurance benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the answer is; 1. Although there may be golf professionals registered with the Department of Manpower and Immigration as seeking employment, they form only a small part of a larger group defined as coaches, trainers, instructors and managers, sport and recreation. Present statistics gathering processes do not lend themselves to the disaggregation of data to pinpoint golf professionals.
2.	The commission does not maintain the statistical information requested.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	(a) What was the total amount allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme to British Columbia constituencies in 1975-76 (b) what were the individual allocations for each constituency?
2.	(a) How many job creation offices, additional to Vancouver, have been set up or are being planned for the Province and, in which constituencies (b) how many persons will be required to staff each such office and from what locations will they be drawn (c) what will be the salary of each officer?
3.	How many jobs were created by the LIP Programme in (a) British Columbia (b) each B.C. constituency in 1975-76?
4.	What percentage of the LIP Programme allocations in British Columbia constituencies covered administrative costs for 1975-76?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1.	(a) $18,128,000; (b) See statement "A" following.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) See statement "B" following.
3.	(a) 4,986; (b) See statement "A" following.
4.	nil.
Statement *'A"
Constituency	L(b)	3. (b)
	Allocation	Jobs Created
Burnaby-Richmond-Delta	325,000	73Burnaby-Seymour	250,000	59Capilano	384,000	102Coast Chilcotin	1,145,000	295Comox-Alberni	1,069,000	271Esquimalt-Saanich	804,000	203Fraser Valley East	979,000	280Fraser Valley West	363,000	95Kamloops-Cariboo {Mr. Cullen.]	1,014,000	303
Statement "A"
Constituency	1(b)	3. (b)
	Allocation	Jobs Created
Kootenay West	608,000	195Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands	1,251,000	379New Westminster	482,000	109Okanagan Boundary	883,000	226Okanagan-Kootenay	1,142,000	309Prince George-Peace River	1,255,000	380Skeena	1,631,000	519Surrey-White Rock	506,000	139Vancouver Centre	1,088,000	290Vancouver East	835,000	188Vancouver Kingsway	491,000	178Vancouver Quadra	368,000	89Vancouver South	378,000	82Victoria	877,000	222Total	18,128,000	4,986
Statement "B"
Job Creation Branch offices in British Columbia, excluding Vancouver
Location of Office	Constituency	Staff*	SalaryVictoria	Victoria	1	$17,241-519,5492	$15,459-517,52311	$14,296-516,2071	$10,394-511,3642	$ 9,363-510,232Terrace	Skeena	1	$17,241-519,5492	$15,459-517,5235	$14,296-516,2071	$10,394-511,3641	$ 9,363-510,232Prince George	Prince George-Peace	River	1	$17,241-519,5491	$15,459-517,5237	$14,296-516,2071	$10,394-511,3642	$ 9,363-510,232Kelowna	Okanagan Boundary	1	$17,241-519,5493	$15,459-517,52312	$14,296-516,2071	$10,394-511,3642	$ 9,363-510,232
* The offices in Prince George and Terrace were staffed entirely through local competitions. In Kelowna and Victoria, some staff were recruited locally while others were transferred from the Vancouver office.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 135, 190 and 1709 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
March 24, 1977

2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Return tabled.


Mr. Saltsman: By province, what were the payments made on RDIA grants to each industry, classified at the three digit SIC level for each fiscal year from 1969-70 to 1974-75?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howie: Were any contracts awarded for the construction, renovation or maintenance of roads, buildings or equipment at CFB Gagetown since January 1, 1975 and, if so (a) to whom (b) in what amounts?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be so good as to call starred questions Nos. 929 and 1,836?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the form of a table and a schedule. I am quite prepared to read it, but it will take some time. I wonder whether the House would agree to have it taken as read and printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McGrath: By constituency, what were the amounts allocated under LIP in Newfoundland and what were the unemployment estimates upon which such allocations were based for 1976-77?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Constituency	Allocation	Unemployment RateBonavista-T rinity-Conception	$1,141,000	17.07Burin-Burgeo	213,000	8.65Gander-Twillingate	1,049,000	' 17.04Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador	1,056,000	14.72Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe	1,807,000	20.25St. Johns East	1,284,000	13.71St. Johns West	1,168,000	13.49
Interim Supply


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Is the Anti-Inflation Board distributing free study kits on inflation across Canada?
2.	Do the kits include an "Inflation Debater" and the text of the Prime Minister's address to the Nation in October 1975?
3.	How many pages are there in this kit and what is the total number of pages of printed matter setting out the government's anti-inflation policy?
4.	What is the estimated total cost of the kit?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes. The study kits were offered to high schools across Canada. These kits consisted of the items listed in Part 2 for use in discussion by the teachers and an additional 40 copies of the Inflation Debator are included for distribution to the students. To date 427,600 copies of the Inflation Debator have been distributed through 4,360 class sets and 160,000 copies were carried as a feature section in the teenage publication Todays Generation-January, 1977 edition.
2.	Yes. The complete kit is composed of: Glossary of Terms, Anti-Inflation Program; Year One; A Guide to Your Personal Fight Against Inflation; Inflation and the AIB; Attack on Inflation-A Program of National Action; Text of the Prime Minister's Message on National Television and Radio, October 13, 1975; Labour's Manifesto for Canada; Inflation Debator and The Way Ahead: Framework for Discussion.
3.	There are 160 pages in the complete kit. The total number of pages setting out the government's anti-inflation policy-106.
4.	$91,000 approximately. Total number of kits in both official languages, 5,920; Total number of Inflation Debator in both official languages, 489,000.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the Financial year ending March 31, 1978, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is here today.
4298

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while the greater part of the substance of the bill relates to the responsibility of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), clause 5, which has to do with the borrowing authority, comes under my responsibility. I should, therefore, like to make a report to the House on the exercise of borrowing authority in the fiscal year now ending and in the coming year.
In clause 5 of the interim supply bill now before the House the government is seeking a new statutory borrowing authority of $7 billion and to cancel all outstanding and unused borrowing authority. As hon. members are aware, the Financial Administration Act, part IV, section 36, requires that "no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament". This refers to "new" money only because there is a continuing authority in the act for the government to borrow funds to repay maturing debt. Authority to borrow sufficient new money to cover estimated financial requirements together with a margin for contingencies is normally sought and granted in one of the first appropriation acts of a new fiscal year.
The long-established procedure for seeking new borrowing powers had been to attach a clause to supply bills brought before the House. This provided no opportunity to debate the borrowing authority being sought under this procedure because the clause is not part of the estimates discussed in standing committees and the supply bill is normally passed without debate.
Mr. Speaker, it was agreed last year that there should be an opportunity for debate on this topic and, indeed, the procedures now being followed reflect a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and agreements among the House leaders.
Hon. members may find it helpful if I begin by reviewing the situation in fiscal 1976-77 which will shortly come to an end. It will be recalled that a borrowing authority of $6 billion was provided in Appropriation Act No. 2, 1976. Under this total authority of $6 billion, we have obtained net new money of $4.85 billion this fiscal year and a further $275 million will be obtained from the April 1 bond issue. Thus, the unused authority which will be cancelled by the passage of this bill will amount to about $875 million. By March 31, 1977, the increases in debt issues will be as follows: treasury bills, $1,760 million; Canada savings bonds, $800 million; marketable bonds, $2,290 million. The total is $4,850 million.
The amounts offered at the 90-day and 180-day treasury bill auctions were $30 million above the amounts maturing each week of the fiscal year. The one-year bills were auctioned four times during the year with increments totalling $200 million over the period. In fiscal 1976-77, $1,960 million marketable bonds matured and $4,250 million new bonds were sold. In order to both broaden the market for our marketable bonds and to lengthen the average term to maturity of our debt, emphasis was placed, during the year, on raising money in the longer term bond market. About 38 per cent of the bonds sold during this period had a maturity in excess of ten years and, as

a result, the average term of the federal debt was lengthened from three years eight months to four years six months.
The 1976-77 Canada savings bond program was most successful in terms of meeting our objectives. Gross sales of about $2,100 million were achieved while redemptions during the fiscal year totalled about $1,300 million. Reflecting our efforts to de-emphasize Canada savings bonds as a source of new funds, Canada savings bonds now represent approximately 38 per cent of the total government debt, as compared with 41 per cent a year ago.
The ownership of the government's debt changed quite significantly during fiscal 1976-77. Chartered banks increased their holdings of marketable securities by about $700 million, or 8.6 per cent, while the Bank of Canada has increased its holdings by about $1,000 million, or 12.5 per cent. The general public, however, increased holdings of government of Canada marketable securities by about $2.3 billion, or 36.8 per cent, as well as increasing holdings of Canada savings bonds by $800 million, or 5.1 per cent.
By March 31, 1977 our cash balances are expected to be standing at a level somewhat higher than the $3.1 billion level recorded at the end of the previous fiscal year. The difference reflects exchange transactions with the Bank of Canada and in the foreign exchange markets. These elements of our balances are extremely volatile and cannot be counted on to provide a permanent contribution toward meeting our cash requirements.
Since the books will remain open for a period of time after the close of the fiscal year, it will be some time before more detailed accounts can be prepared showing the breakdown between budgetary and non-budgetary transactions. I shall be providing the House with some preliminary estimates, however, in my budget. The new statutory borrowing authority of $7 billion will provide a margin for contingencies. In the coming fiscal year, as in most previous years, the full amount of this borrowing authority may not be required. It is important, however, that we have the flexibility properly to plan and implement our debt management operations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: For example, it is our practice to provide a margin of unused borrowing authority against which we can charge new Canada savings bond sales in the event that an unexpected high level of sales is achieved in the campaign period. We also have to take into account any unpredictable requirements caused by exchange fund account transactions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I welcome this opportunity to debate the appropriation bill for interim supply. I am very pleased that we have the opportunity of showing the government how displeased we are when they try to circumvent the rules by including borrowing authority in supplementary
March 24, 1977

appropriation bills the authority for which has not been provided for in the estimates. This may be a concrete example of why it was necessary to have the motion we had on Tuesday with regard to $1 items. We have to come back to this from time to time in order to teach hon. members that they have to conform with the practices and rules of parliament. Today is a concrete example.
I shall comment at length on the statistical information that the minister gave us. I am sure my colleagues and others in the House will avail themselves of this information in preparation for the budget debate which starts in about ten days' time. It is a matter of record.
I do not intend to speak very long this afternoon because it is generally agreed that other than a short speech of commentary on second reading the House will by agreement move to committee of the whole, on clause 2, it will be open to hon. members to choose any estimates of any department which they see fit.
We clearly indicated to the government House leader yesterday that we wish to discuss in particular detail the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais). As far as we are concerned, these shall be given an even break between now and 9.20 p.m. tonight, although I must say the introduction of a ministerial statement with comments did knock off half an hour of our timetable.
I would hope that as part of this experiment we could introduce later a grievance session where members who may have objections can catch Mr. Speaker's eye for maybe three or four minutes so there can be as wide as possible participation until 9.45.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Going back to the old days!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As my colleague from Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) says, it is going back to the old days. The older practices in this House with regard to estimates permitted members to express themselves on the question of supply. That is part and parcel of the task and the role of parliament, regardless of what some pundits say. They say that this shall be a legislative grist-mill and shall be something new and bold. I do not know what they are talking about, because they have not expressed a new idea in years. Be that as it may, I hope that today will provide us with a blue-print for good practice and that in consequence thereof we may bring about some changes in the rules in order to have this better participation.
The minister said he was asking for an increase in the statutory borrowing authority to $7 billion. That is up from $6 billion this year. I think the margin he has provided is good fiscal management, because on a previous occasion it was found that the government, by selling its Canada savings bonds in a good year exceeded the statutory borrowing authority and had to come in by the back door to legitimize its actions.
Interim Supply
The latest Bank of Canada statistics, of January 12, 1977, indicate that $41,138 million is the debt of Canada. Of this, there was $16,577 million in Canada savings bonds and $24,279 million in various types of papers, bonds, treasury bills, and so on. With particular reference to our estimates, what is of more concern to me is the increase in the size of the estimates to deal with the national debt. In 1966, $1,110 million was required. In 1974 it was $2,608.9 million. In 1975 it had gone to $3,208.4 million. In 1976, up to supplementary estimates A, it was $3,775 million. This year, as it appears at page 82 of the "blue book", we see that the total program for public debt shall cost $5,350 million. This is not an inconsiderable sum of money. One will appreciate these astronomical figures. In other words, I would say that 96 per cent to 97 per cent of the interest that the government of Canada paid on its national debt is payable in Canada. To that extent, it is money that stays at home.
I do not think this could be said entirely with respect to some of the provinces and the provincial Crown agencies which have to pay a great deal of interest abroad. This is not entirely a matter of accident, because I think, because of the annual sales of Canada savings bonds and certain other features of federal bonds, that some of the provincial authorities find themselves entirely crowded out of the Canadian money market. Canadians, under our tax system, have precious little money to invest in Canada savings bonds, RRSPs, life insurance and other forms of investment. Up to 43 per cent of our gross national product is paid directly into public treasuries. This affords very little leeway for savings. Government of Canada bonds are not bought by provincial governments and municipalities: they are competing for money.
Since the so-called 1971 tax reforms the government of Canada, as well as the provinces, has certainly been slicing into the GNP, leaving precious little to the Canadian bond market. It is no wonder that Canadian Crown agencies, governments, the provinces, municipalities, school boards and businesses have to go abroad to tap savings. Our tax system in Canada confiscates earnings to a degree that should be unacceptable to the Canadian public.
One can only do certain things with one's dollars. Either the Canadian government takes them in the form of tax, which naturally is of no benefit to the taxpayer, or the taxpayer is given an opportunity of saving some money and investing it at his own choice either in Canadian bonds or some other form of Canadian investment. Until we learn our lesson we will be forever bleating that there is too much demand on foreign capital to serve legitimate Canadian interests. Frankly, we as Canadians are the authors of our own misfortune because governments both at this level and the provincial level are going in with both hands and ladling up all they can of the Canadian economic pie.
On that count, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will be able in due course to move into committee of the whole, where my colleagues and others in the House will then turn their attention
80010-6S'/2

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
to particular estimates. I commend this practice to the House and we should see whether we can repeat it and come up with something better than we have had in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this second reading stage of the bill mainly to say that we do not intend to make any speeches on second reading. We agree with and accept the idea put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that we should use this day primarily in committee of the whole. We have at least three of our members who hope to get on before we reach the time tonight when there might be shorter statements on grievances. Those members include the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). If it is of any value to the government to have some warning, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is concerned about unemployment in his part of his country as well as throughout Canada. He will be addressing himself to the failure of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and related matters. The hon. member for Greenwood will be dealing with defence. The hon. member for Broadview will be dealing with housing. Because we want to spend the day on these matters of substance we are quite prepared not to debate second reading of the bill but to let it carry so we can get right into committee of the whole.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words at this stage of the debate on Bill C-45 because I have had the opportunity to examine several bills of this kind since I have been sitting in this House and I note that this one does not differ much from the others.
I would have also liked to make several comments on clause 5 of this bill, but since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) more or less bombarded us with a number of figures that we found very hard to stomach, I for one-and I do think that most of my colleagues will have to do the same thing- will have to wait until tomorrow to consider a rather comprehensive set of Figures that we were given.
In any event, I note the procedure used by the minister and the government, namely the power to borrow $7 billion not only to meet public works but mainly to pay back loans coming due, and I note that the greater part of that $7 billion is going to be used to pay back amounts that are already due, and that sort of leads me to say that there are holes to be filled and that further holes are going to be dug to fill them. The problem will not be solved like that. We will have to pay this year over $5 billion interest on our public debt, nearly the whole amount that is to be borrowed.
Mr. Speaker, I think that until the government decides to take the necessary steps to administer this country the way private industry is administered, we cannot expect to have bills different from this kind.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were discussions earlier today, and yesterday, with respect to our proceedings later this afternoon in relation to private members' hour. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has a suggestion to make respecting that matter.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the point of order may I say it would have been my hope that at the appropriate time at five o'clock, when the Chair has to intervene for private members' hour, the House would agree to waive the hour for today in view of the fact that the sponsor of the private bill with First priority is not here today. I suggest we defer it until next week. I have had assurances from the various party House leaders that this is acceptable.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I simply raised the point at this stage because it would cause us some procedural difficulty to attempt to take a decision of the House to deal with private members' hour in other than the usual way if we were in committee at that point in time. I thought it might be easier to deal with the matter now, rather than requiring the committee to rise, report progress and go through that more complicated procedure.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to support the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary, but I am one of those who is interested in private members' hour on Thursdays, having sponsored private Bill S-2 which, presumably, would have been the bill which would have come into the House if the other private bill was not ready. I am really saying that I regret I have not been consulted about this. I think it would have been more appropriate to consult those who have an interest in private members' hour before making this kind of suggestion. However, I do understand the urgency or importance of this move, and I will support it.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, let me just say I regret the oversight in not raising the matter with the hon. member who has just spoken, and I appreciate his courtesy in co-operating with the suggestion that we are making.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will realize, it took a little arm-twisting to get us to accept this proposition, but we do agree to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There seems to be general agreement that we waive private members' hour. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to committee of the whole. With
March 24, 1977

the indulgence of the House I will now refer to the adjournment motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Anti-Inflation Board-Suggested instructions to Hostess Foods on refunding excess profits; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-External Affairs-Proposed loan to Chile by Canadian banks-Government position; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. McGrath)-Transport-Commission of inquiry into problems in Newfoundland-Terms of reference and date of commencement.
Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1978-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I want to discuss some questions in connection with the energy estimates, but before going into that I would like to record my surprise at parliament's lack of control in these matters, something which I have observed in the brief time I have been here since last November. At least today we have an opportunity to discuss these matters, but I have found that the time we spend in committees on estimates is misspent so far as obtaining answers from ministers is concerned. I have made many attempts to get some information in various committees but I have found my attempts to be futile.
Not only am I surprised at the fact that billions of dollars go through parliament on deadlines without an opportunity being afforded to the opposition to pressure the government in
Interim Supply
connection with the estimates and supplementary supply, but the new rule changes brought in by the government have choked off discussion and limited control by the House in these matters. Also, when questions are asked during the question period they are treated very lightly.
I consider that when Canada faces a grave energy situation-and presumably the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources feel the same way in this matter-the question must be treated seriously. Heaven only knows that we have had a sufficient number of energy studies, energy strategies, energy policies and initiatives, as well as technical studies in the last three or four years since the energy crisis arose in the fall of 1973. We have had every kind of strategy, initiatives and report that one could expect from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. What we want now is some kind of action from the department in these areas.
Studies were tabled in the House last week which show that energy self-sufficiency in Canada is very unlikely to be achieved. The situation is very serious indeed. Energy costs will escalate. They will certainly double within the next five years or less. Yet when we ask questions in the House regarding these matters we are treated with buffoonery. Hon. members opposite act as if they were gargoyles when they answer questions in the way mine was answered yesterday on this matter. We consider this to be a very serious issue.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: In 1973 the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources initiated all these studies and strategies, and yet they are not being carried out. Only lip service is given to them. Let us consider some of these studies. Let us tike a look, first, at a study entitled, "An Energy Strategy for Canada (Summary)" tabled in the House last Thursday. At page 3 it is stated that these are energy-related targets. These days it is always a target, a policy, an initiative or a strategy. The study reads, at page 3:
The major energy-related targets adopted by the government of Canada are ... to reduce Canadian net dependence on imported oil in 1985 to one-third of our total oil demands.
That will never be achieved under the present initiatives. It goes on to read:
-to double, at a minimum, exploration and development in the frontier areas of Canada over the next three years-
This goes back to 1976 when the study was published. It goes on to read:
-under acceptable social and environmental conditions.
What is happening? The other study tabled last week shows that if Canada is even to attempt to be self-sufficient in oil and gas, and I refer to page 4 of the study entitled "Oil and Natural Gas Resources of Canada, 1976" which reads:
The bulk of the hydrocarbon potential (mainly gas) lies in the three frontier regions, the Mackenzie Delta-Beaufort Sea, Arctic Islands and Labrador Shelf regions which are expensive and difficult to explore.
The other two areas where we have a chance to be self-sufficient are in heavy oils and in the tar sands, both of which will

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
be very expensive to develop. I attempted to ask a question yesterday about what the minister is doing to expedite frontier exploration. It is stated in the energy strategy study that he will double it over the next three years, but two years have already gone by and we find that not only has the exploration not doubled but it has been decreased by in excess of 50 per cent. In the Arctic Islands the number of oil wells drilled plummetted to 12 last year from the 1973 and 1974 high figures of 23 each year, and the forecast is that there will be a 50 per cent drop in 1977 from last year. In the Mackenzie Delta there is a dramatic drop of 70 per cent from the 1973 peak season of 60 wells, and this year there will be much the same number as in 1976. In other words, the rate has not doubled since the statement was made; it has declined in excess of 50 per cent. Why is that? I will not give you my own opinion as to why. I will give you the opinion from Oil Week in their issue of February 28, a knowledgeable magazine of the industry:
The decline in exploration in the northern frontiers is due to two reasons. In the southern basin, established transportation facilities, good potential... have caused exploration companies to redirect this money to the more favourable areas, and secondly, government waffling, fence-sitting, inaction and indecision on pipelines and land regulations has led to the conclusion that eventual cash flow from Arctic regions may be small.
As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been waffling, sitting on the fence, not acting and indecisive on these questions, we would like some answers from him. Six years ago the oil and gas regulations then in effect were removed and the whole subject was opened up for further exploration. I believe it was on April 27, 1976, that the energy strategy for Canada was made public. It was on May 19, 1976, that the proposed petroleum and natural gas act and the proposed Canadian oil and gas regulations were tabled by the minister, but we are still waiting for the legislation and the regulations to be made public and introduced into the House. That is despite the fact that in the study, "Energy Strategy for Canada", at page 38 it is stated that these regulations would be introduced that year. The following is stated:
Federal legislation concerning Canadian oil and gas land regulations, to be introduced to parliament shortly-
It was practically a year ago that the document was published. Further on in the same document, at page 127, the following statement is made:
-the legislation concerning Canadian oil and gas land regulations that will be presented to parliament this year and that will govern exploration and development activity in areas falling within federal jurisdiction, will impose only a nominal royalty and provide a substantial degree of flexibility.
They have not yet been introduced. Yesterday the minister said "soon", and in the committee last week he also said "soon". People who know something about this say that unless speculation is ended about the terms that will apply, there will be very little exploration in these frontier areas. The fall in exploration levels is not so much due to exploration results as to the result of government inaction. There is no foreseeable production time-frame. That is what has happened. Yesterday, when I attempted to ask a question about whether the government is going to provide an incentive so that these frontier
[Mr. Crosbic.J
areas can be explored more quickly in order to achieve the government's targets, the minister brushed off my question with what I described as a "smart-ass" answer. I made the mistake of using the word "smart".


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The Chair does not think that is parliamentary language.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Chairman considers those words to be unparliamentary, I withdraw them. In any event, it was a Smart Alec answer which had nothing to do with what I was asking. If I wanted to ask about the oil and gas regulations of the government of Newfoundland, I would ask the government of Newfoundland; I would not ask the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We are not here in this House for jokes and byplay-and it is not true to say that I have any connection with anything the government of Newfoundland is doing. I left there seven months ago. I am quite prepared to defend whatever that government did when I was there, but I do not even know what its proposed regime is with regard to these oil and gas regulations. They were set out in the last couple of months.
In any event, that is irrelevant. The minister is in a jurisdictional dispute with the government of Newfoundland as to who has control of these matters, but there is no jurisdictional dispute about frontier areas north of the 60th parallel. That is what I was asking about. The minister should get on with the job of seeing that every action necessary to develop the frontier areas is taken if it is his desire that we be self-sufficient.
Our energy future is grim indeed from the point of view of our being self-sufficient and from the point of view of costs; but all we have are these studies and some very tentative steps. What we need now is action. There have been enough studies. There has been enough ministerial mug-wumping. It is time for the minister to outline what he is going to do, how he is going to do it, what it is going to cost, and what the price of oil and gas will be. His studies show that even when oil and gas prices in Canada rise to the world level, that will not be enough to make new tar sands plants and new heavy oil plants economic, certainly not with the present royalty and taxation regime. What is the minister doing about that?
There is supposed to be a meeting of federal and provincial officials to try to settle the terms of the development of another tar sands project. When will there be a progress report on that? What is happening with regard to heavy oil? What is happening to oil prices? In his studies the minister says that within two to four years those prices will rise to the world level. They have to rise to the world level. The other day, in committee, the minister asked what the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is on that. If he does not already know, I will reassure him that our policy is that the prices for oil and gas have to rise to world level, but that in doing this over a period of time we have to keep prices in the United States as a major factor since we cannot allow our prices to climb higher than theirs for competitive reasons.
March 24, 1977

However, bearing that in mind, we have to go to world prices for oil and gas for conservation reasons and so that we can develop our frontier resources, our tar sands and our heavy oil. But what is the program for that? There is to be a meeting of ministers on April 6. What will be the minister's strategy there? What is holding up the legislation on oil and gas regulations? A year ago the government said the legislation would be introduced in parliament very shortly. What is happening? Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is giggling, but all our gigawatt hours are being used up and our reserves are burning away.
The minister is not taking our questions seriously. Alberta, British Columbia and, now, even Saskatchewan have changed their revenue regimes. Saskatchewan says it is now going to change its regime to encourage more exploration and development because its past regimes have been too restrictive. That is how the industry has found them to be. What is the government of Canada doing to encourage more exploration in this area? I sometimes think that the minister must be a foreign agent. He should be listed as a lobbyist for East-Can. He keeps referring to East-Can in irrelevant references to the Labrador situation and the dispute with the Newfoundland government.
I have yet to see an oil or gas company which is satisfied with even the regulations proposed by the federal government, much less the regulations of the other government. However, there is no doubt-and experience shows-that if we are going to get under way development in the frontier regions and on the Arctic Islands, and if we are going to do very much with regard to tar sands and heavy oil, there has to be a considerable number of government initiatives.
When the minister speaks I would like him to touch on these energy strategies. They pay lip service to the development of hydro power and renewable energy resources, but lip service only. Each of these documents has the same kind of thing to say about hydro energy and about how it must be encouraged, yet the government of Canada has gone backward in the last six or eight years by not encouraging the development of hydro resources in Canada. I am not just referring to Labrador, although in Labrador alone, if our hydro resources were developed and if they were used in Newfoundland and Canada generally, there would be a tremendous saving: there would be 44.3 million barrels of electricity generating oil saved if Gull Island, Muskrat Falls, the Eagle and several other rivers were developed, and another 38 million barrels of oil would be saved if the hydro potential of five rivers running from Labrador through Quebec to the gulf were developed.
I am not talking just about Labrador. Hydro energy can be found in many remote locations, but it is expensive. There are many other areas throughout Canada where hydro can still be developed, although they are remote northern areas. That potential can be found in the Yukon and in British Columbia. In northwestern Ontario there are rivers which flow to James Bay and to Hudson Bay. There is the Mackenzie River, and rivers running to Ungava Bay. There is the Great Bear River near Norman Wells, the Rat River near the Mackenzie Delta,
Interim Supply
the Liard River, the Yukon River in the Yukon and in northern British Columbia, and so forth. There are other potential sites in British Columbia. Hydro sites are not just to be found in Labrador, but the hydro potential which is available is remote and expensive and it will not be developed unless the government of Canada is forthcoming with a more generous policy of financial assistance.
Six or seven years ago, in Manitoba, the policy was that the government would lend 100 per cent of the cost of transmission lines from the Nelson River development, but the policy today is to lend a provincial utility engaged in a project involving interregional or interprovincial connections 50 per cent of the money at Crown corporation interest rates. The policy has gone backwards, even though the need is now much greater. The policy of helping nuclear developments is much more generous. The policy is to provide a 50 per cent loan for the first plant in a province, but the government is heavily subsidizing heavy water, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the development of nuclear energy in every direction. Meanwhile, hydro energy, which is renewable, clean and which has no dangers associated with it, receives this half-hearted federal support which is nothing but lip service.
What is the matter with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? Is the minister blind to the use and the virtues of hydro development? Has it something to do with the fact that the only river he is familiar with is the Humber River which flows through Toronto? Why cannot a real policy of hydro development be initiated by the government of Canada?
In reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Central Nova, the minister said that he is taking a new initiative with the province of Newfoundland for Labrador. If that is so, it is a very low-key initiative. There have been no substantive new offers from the federal government with regard to hydroelectric development in Newfoundland for Gull Island. There should be. It is criminal that development is not under way there now, but as yet there has not been developed-and there should be-a general hydro assistance policy with much more generous terms than the present one. If Canada is going to get anywhere, we need a new hydro assistance policy.
Lip service has also been paid to the matter of energy conservation. All the strategies and documents suggest that the government hopes to reduce growth to 3.5 per cent per year. As long as politics intervene there is no chance of that, because any genuine conservation assistance will go only to certain selected provinces, depending on what governments those provinces have and depending upon political factors, but not on reason or logic at all.
There are a lot of questions that should be asked in this area and I suggest to the minister that he should deal with some of the major issues today. The documents he has tabled are a major indictment of his inaction. The ordinary people do not understand what they are going to be hit with in the next five to ten years or that what they are going to pay for energy will

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
be stupendous. They do not even know whether their needs can be met. They will not be met if we drift along as we are drifting today and if when questions are asked in this House they are not treated seriously but used as a means to score political points. The minister's energy program requires action. It requires movement in order to meet these problems. I want to end with a short poem, Mr. Speaker.
While energy costs climb and supplies dwindle Mr. Gillespie engages in the energy swindle The impression he hopes-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just two lines, Mr. Chairman.
The impression he hopes is that Canada wins-


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. When hon. members refer to any member of the House it must be by riding, or as "the hon. minister."


John Carnell Crosbie: While energy costs climb and supplies dwindle.
The minister engages in the energy swindle,
The impression he hopes is that Canada wins,
But he answers our questions with inane grins.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few general remarks by way of introduction and then permit members to put specific questions. I think all hon. members have been entertained by the rhetoric of the hon. member opposite. When I made the charge yesterday that he was the author of the Newfoundland regulations, I did not realize that I had hit home so accurately. I can place no other interpretation upon the very substantial part of his remarks this evening which have been directed to defence of the position of Newfoundland and the freedom of Newfoundland to impose its own set of regulations regardless of the price to Newfoundland and regardless of the price to Canadians.
That was the most disappointing part of his remarks. Newfoundland is often regarded-and I think is probably claimed by the hon. member-as one of the poorer regions of the country. It is also a province that has on its offshore some of the richest potential oil and natural gas resources in the country. Six wells have been drilled in some of the toughest water anywhere in the world, and indications of petroleum and natural gas have been found in three of those six wells. That must be regarded as unique in this country and in the northern regions of the offshore. It is very encouraging, and any oilman will endorse that. It is also a fact that drilling in this area has only a three-month season because the icebergs move down and the rigs have to move off. It is dangerous to the drillers and dangerous environmentally, to extend the season. It is also in deep water.


Mr. Baldwin:: Like you are.


Alastair William Gillespie: In other words, the cost of drilling is probably higher there than almost anywhere in the country, perhaps
[Mr. Crosbie.)
almost anywhere else in the world. It is also likely to be the most high-cost energy to move to shore once it is found in commercial quantities. That is why the regime in respect of the regulations is so important. That is why the East-Can consortium, which has already invested $100 million in the prospects of this region, has said it is not prepared to go ahead unless they receive assurance from the Newfoundland government^-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member says that is not true. I will leave it to him to state his proof. I think the burdeh of proof is on him.


Mr. Bawden:: Tell us about the things you are in charge of.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am concerned about the future oil and gas situation, the energy situation in Canada. I think we must take every opportunity to explore where we can, to locate where we can the resources we are going to need in the future. Quite clearly, the frontier is going to be important. The arrogant attitude the hon. member displayed this afternoon is not going to encourage the oil industry to pursue the kind of activity needed in this country. It will be a loss to Canada and Canadians, and very particularly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will delay the time when we will become self-sufficient. I ask the hon. member to reconsider what can only be called a very defensive and transparent argument in support of his actions and the actions of the government of which he was previously a member.
The hon. member also referred to frontier exploration in other frontiers of Canada and indicated that we were not going to meet the target which our energy strategy set out as double-exploration on the offshore in the next three years. He suggested we only had one year to go. I am not surprised that he might drop a year. What is a 33 per cent error for someone who can make the wild statement he made this evening? The fact of the matter is that one year has gone by and there are two to go. It is also a fact that one of the reasons the industry is standing back at present is that a decision has not been taken on a pipeline by the federal government which would bring the natural gas resources of the Mackenzie Valley to Canada. The hon. member quoted from "Oil Week" and said the minister is waffling on the pipeline decision; I think that was his phrase, that the minister, and perhaps the government as well, are fence-sitting on the pipeline decision. I can only assume the hon. member has made up his mind with respect to the pipeline and has decided it should be built. I can only assume he would tell us which pipeline he would support.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I rise a point of order. The hon. minister has misquoted me. I referred to a decision on pipelines and land regulations.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member has clarified his position. He mentioned pipelines and he has confirmed that part, but he has added "land regulations". I will deal with that in later remarks. Let it be clear that he was saying to us that the
March 24, 1977

government has been waffling on a pipeline decision. I should not think it necessary to tell him that the National Energy Board was created by an act of this House for purposes of examining the public interest and determining whether a certificate should issue with respect to public convenience and necessity.
That act was introduced in the 1950s by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Through that act the National Energy Board was given authority to examine the merits of various pipeline proposals. The hon. member suggests that we should have ignored all that and should have made up our minds in any event; that we should not have waited for the facts. I think that is more than arrogant; 1 think it is just plain irresponsible.


Frank Oberle: That is not what he said.


Alastair William Gillespie: I challenge him, if he has already made up his mind, to tell us what his decision would have been in these circumstances. I think he should be prepared to back up his charge by following through. Perhaps other members of his party share this view, although I doubt it. He seems to have ignored the fact that the Berger commission was created to examine the social and environmental impact of a pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley. He criticized the government for not having taken a decision at this time. He ought to know that we will not take any decision until the Berger commission report has been tabled, until there has been public discussion, and until we receive the report of the National Energy Board. How else can 1 possibly interpret his remarks when he says that the government has been waffling on the pipeline?


Frank Oberle: No, you are twisting; you are stretching.


Alastair William Gillespie: As I said, I think the hon. member was more interested in rhetoric, in covering up his own inadequacies, his own decisions of perhaps one year ago, than he was in seeking a real explanation for certain important strategic decisions which have been taken by people in this country. There are other reasons why the exploration in the north, when measured in feet drilled this year, has not been as extensive this past year as it has been in other years. One of those reasons is that the new drilling is largely taking place offshore and is, therefore, very much more expensive. It is much more expensive to drill a well some miles offshore.
I hope hon. members remember the decision the government took one year ago with respect to deep Beaufort Sea drilling. I think hon. members know that it costs in the order of $30 million to drill such a well. It is much more costly to drill wells at sea than it is to drill a well in the shallow gas fields of southern Saskatchewan or Alberta.
The hon. member referred to the oil and gas regulations and asked if I could clarify when the government would place those oil and gas regulations before the House. He would be one of the first to argue that it is important, since the field is technical, since regulations could affect the decisions of the
Interim Supply
industry and will be considered by the House, that there should be consultation with the industry as to the impact of those regulations.
One year ago we submitted a proposal with respect to the principle of the new regulations, and since then there have been large numbers of discussions between my department and the industry and myself and the industry. The hon. member also recognizes that such regulations are technically difficult to draft and that they must be drafted with great care and skill.


Peter Colwell Bawden: And how many more years will they take?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Chairman, this process has been going on. I hope it is close to final conclusion. I can tell the committee that the legislation dealing with the new land regime and tax regime is being considered by the Department of Justice. I hope to present it to the House shortly. Lastly, the hon. member referred to Gull Island.


Charles Robert Turner: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Calgary South rising. Does he wish to raise a question of privilege.


Peter Colwell Bawden: No, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister would permit a question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will have plenty of time to ask his question when I have concluded my general comments in reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for St. John's West. The hon. member for St. John's West referred to the Gull Island development and its potential. He knows perfectly well that I regard that development, as he does, as most important to Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed to all Canada. I think it is likely to be most important to people in the maritimes. He ought to know that initiatives I have taken are moving forward significantly. I hope he will be prepared to admit that I cannot say more at present because I am awaiting a response from the Premier of Newfoundland. I called the premier some weeks ago and told him of the proposal which would, in effect, not only resurrect the discussion with respect to the transmission system from the lower Churchill to Newfoundland but provide, also, a basis upon which the federal government could discuss with him a financing arrangement involving, possibly, equity financing of the generation facility itself.
The premier responded positively, and I think has indicated publicly his interest in pursuing this question. The ball is now in Newfoundland's court; we are awaiting an update on the engineering study and the cost study to allow us to pursue that particular project in an intelligent and informed way. We will not advance the cause of Gull Island with the wild sort of statements which the hon. member opposite has been making.
Let me make another comment. The hon. member seemed to imply that we were much more generous in supporting the financing of new nuclear facilities than in supporting the financing of transmission systems and hydro systems. I remind him that the offer to Newfoundland with respect to transmis-
4306

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
sion systems is still on the table. The amount of $343 million offered with respect to transmission lines compares favourably with the assistance we have offered New Brunswick for the Point Lepreau nuclear station. When you consider that we are prepared to discuss financing arrangements for generation as well as transmission, you can see that the federal government's offer with respect to that significant hydro facility is greater than any outstanding offer made with respect to any nuclear facility.
I think, in general, those remarks [DOT] cover what the hon. member said in his introductory statement. I regret that it was not a more constructive statement, although I compliment him on one point: he said his party has now adopted a policy position, which has been a long time coming forward. At least it has adopted a policy position with respect to the pricing of oil. He suggested this afternoon that his party now supports the government's policy of moving oil prices up to the world price. I congratulate him on that, because he should take some of the credit. The Conservative party had not made a policy statement before he joined it. Now, a short time after joining the ranks of those hon. members in this House, he has been able to secure such a policy statement.
Perhaps he will be able to persuade his colleagues to recognize the importance of Petro-Canada. The hon. member comes from the east coast and should recognize the important role Petro-Canada plays in the development of east coast resources. Surely he will be among the first to recognize the potential benefit of Petro-Canada. I regret that he did not mention Petro-Canada when he spoke. There may be some reason for the omission. Perhaps his colleagues recognize his sympathies for Petro-Canada and have sworn him to secrecy. I suggest to the hon. member that if he keeps working away in this manner he may influence the Conservative party to take yet another positive position.


Mr. Hogan:: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Regional Economic Expension for this year, like the last two years, scarcely keep up with the inflation factor in this country. In my opinion, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is largely a failure in terms of its stated goal to eliminate the disparity in income gaps as between the Atlantic provinces and central Canada or the Canadian average income. So much of the DREE funds each year, including this year, are allocated to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario that DREE has become a sort of farce in so far as closing the income gap between the Atlantic region and central Canada is concerned.
DREE in the modern period had its genesis with the study that was done by Walter Gordon in 1957 in which he advocated for the Atlantic provinces that a capital projects commission be established. This was shortly to be followed by the Atlantic Development Board which consisted largely of infrastructure expenditures in the Atlantic provinces in the nature of power and highways. It was supposed to come up with a plan for development of the Atlantic provinces that would gradual-

ly, over a period of years, close the interim gap that is so old and so consistent within Canadian confederation. The Atlantic Development Board folded before it came up with a plan. It was rapidly followed by another alphabetical agency, the Area Development Agency. It, too, folded after a few years.
In 1969 we got the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has followed a policy of developing the larger or metropolitan areas of Atlantic provinces, practically ignoring the smaller ones. There are gaps between the regions within a province; for example, between metropolitan Saint John, New Brunswick, and northern New Brunswick, between St. John's, Newfoundland, and all the outer regions of Newfoundland, between Charlottetown and the rest of the province of Prince Edward Island, and between the Halifax-Dartmouth area and the rest of the province of Nova Scotia.
What we have is a policy that is based upon the notion that where there is already a government apparatus in the form of an existing government, for example in Nova Scotia which is highly supplemented by the defence sector, the policy is to push large funds in infrastructure into these areas while at the same time allowing the outer areas to go down relative to these central areas. The result is that only recently, with the advent of the Anti-Inflation Board and the cutting down of federal expenditures in areas such as Halifax-Dartmouth, has the gap been somewhat closed between the Atlantic provinces and the central Canadian average. However, this was at the cost of the outer areas. What DREE has done is look after three-quarters of a million of the people in the Atlantic provinces while completely neglecting the other VA million who live there. I suggest that this is a stupid policy.
If I were a Liberal member from the Atlantic provinces I would ask the cabinet to reconsider whether what they are doing in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is largely a waste of time except for image building. They can say they have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion. When Premier Regan took over in the province of Nova Scotia, rather than completely throwing out the voluntary economic planning board that had been set up by a previous Conservative government, he left it in order to show that they had the image of a planning power. Something much more decisive is needed. I do not have time to go into detail. However, in my opinion one of the great failures of DREE as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned is related to the general fiscal and monetary policies that have been followed by this government in recent years, especially the so-called Trudeau years.
Today there is a pessimistic feeling that we can never really get back to full employment in this country. Why? It is because of the monetary and fiscal policies that have been followed for so long. We have a classic example of that now with over one million Canadians unemployed. If you include the hidden unemployed, it would be no exaggeration to say that there are between 1,300,000 and 1,500,000. All of this has been done in order to control inflation. At the same time, we have had tight control over the private sector by means of the
March 24, 1977

Anti-Inflation Board. In my opinion, there was no need for it. A correction was probably needed to balance off the public sector wages in the past five or eight years against the private sector. Rather than the government facing up to that responsibility-and this includes not only the federal government but provincial and municipal governments-they Jet the whole situation get out of line.
The failure of DREE is closely related to the failure of national policies. We will never get a successful Department of Regional Economic Expansion and a closing of the income gap between the Atlantic provinces and other poorer regions of Canada and the other regions that are well off until there is co-ordination between the fiscal and monetary macroeconomic policies and the policies co-ordinated with new development organizations at a regional level.
As I have pointed out, there are many today who are saying that we can never get back to full employment. With the proper policies we can get back to it within three or four years. There is a pessimistic feeling that we can never really get back to a full employment economy. I propose in this speech to show that it can, and must, be done in order to keep confederation going.
We are worried, now, about the cultural climate of Quebec because of the victory of the Parti Quebecois which is connected with separatism. We know there are linguistic and cultural roots. The feeling of separatism and the kindling of that feeling in Quebec is largely tied to the fact that their economic resources have not been used well. Many of their people, both young and old, who should be working are not working. According to Statistics Canada, there is 10 per cent unemployment in that province, but in reality it is closer to 13 per cent. That, in itself, is enough to kindle the separatist feeling. All this has happened under a man well-intentioned in his bilingual policy, although it has been badly implemented, but who has completely neglected to manage our economy so well that these forces in Quebec could be squelched. I feel, coming from the Atlantic region, complete affinity for these people as far as this economic insecurity and this feeling of economic inferiority is concerned, because really what the government has failed to do in managing its over-all policy is to allow Quebec, the Atlantic regions and northern Ontario, and so on, to suffer in order that the large metropolitan areas would improve.
It is true that most people in this country live in the large metropolitan areas, and it is true that the government-and this bothers me very much-has a policy for the future based upon a policy that has been shown in the United States to be stupid, to build very large-huge-cities so that you never contain, for example, a population of the size of Toronto; you just let it go on and on, because you let market forces keep intervening because you cannot take the steps to halt them as a government; and provincial governments seem to agree. It is the same in Montreal, the same in Vancouver. So we are content to say, as Canadians, that within the next 20 or 25
Interim Supply
years, three-quarters of our people will live in four or five cities.
No wonder there is a feeling of alienation. No wonder there is a feeling of separatism outside these areas, when most of the government's thinking is done this way and when you have a kind of a bone thrown to the dog in terms of something called DREE that does nothing except add to that type of thing by just improving the large metropolitan areas of the Atlantic region.
Again, if you look at the statistics, Mr. Chairman, you will find that outside Halifax and Dartmouth in Nova Scotia, outside Saint John and Fredericton in New Brunswick, outside St. John's in Newfoundland, outside Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island, the rest of the people in the Atlantic region get only 50 per cent-between 50 per cent and 55 per cent-of the average income of Canadians who live in the other metropolitan areas I have mentioned, especially here in central Canada, in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. I submit this is a disgrace and that we need policies of a national nature that will make regional organizations such as DREE meaningful only when they are co-ordinated so that they will have some kind of meaning for these outlying areas. Until this is done, until we get these policies, until we get a recommitment for full employment, there is no hope that what I am asking for will take place. In other words, we need the pursuit of equity in this country through guaranteed employment.
Everybody in Canada, left, right and centre, would probably say they are in favour of an equitable society. The difference arises as to what exactly is meant by equity and the divergent evaluation of the costs and benefits in conflicting ways of achieving equity. Since in our democratic country society's idea of fair distribution of economic resources depends upon bringing together our various individual ideas of equity, the first problem is to determine how each of us wpuld specify an equitable society. Only then can we move on to determining and implementing our collective wisdom.
To aid in this process I invite hon. members to perform the following experiment called, in psychology, the Gedanken experiment. Imagine that all economic resources were to be awarded in a random lottery where none of us would know whether we were to gain the largest or the smallest prize. If this were the case, what distribution of prizes would we like our lottery to make? While we might agree on the amount of inequality we would be willing to generate, most of us would not advocate great inequalities, and all of us would be in favour of some minimum prize-our survival would depend on it. Those advocating inequality must prove that any decrease in inequality would reduce the size or rate of growth of the economic pie that is available for distribution.
Given this burden of proof, what does the evidence show? Fortunately, this is one of the few cases where in North America all the empirical evidence points in the same direction. Surveys of work behaviour, econometric studies of work decisions and negative income tax experiments all suggest that current inequalities are much larger than those necessary to produce and expand the gross national product. The tax
80010-66*72

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
system, positive and negative, could be made more progressive and, if anything, work efforts would increase rather than diminish.
Just how thorough is the inequality in the distribution of the national economic pie? In 1965, as far as family units were concerned, the bottom 20 per cent were getting 4.4 per cent of that pie while the top 20 per cent were getting 41.4 per cent. The family unit is defined here as including both families and unattached individuals. In 1974, the bottom 20 per cent were getting 4 per cent of the national pie and the top 20 per cent were getting 42.5 per cent. The sad part of the matter is that both in Canada and the United States the relative position of these groups has been the same since 1957, despite all the individual components which go to make up the welfare state in a mixed capitalistic system.
When you look at families, and that includes the unattached individual, you find that in 1965 the bottom 20 per cent were getting 6.2 per cent of the pie and the top 20 per cent were getting 39 per cent. In 1974 it was 6.3 per cent for the bottom 20 per cent and 38.8 per cent for the top 20 per cent. In 1974, there were 5.5 million families in Canada. We dismiss this fact and try to hide behind the statistics. But they are Canadian citizens and families.
There were, in 1974, 93,500 families who received less than $3,000 a year in this country. There are some, of course, who are quick to point out that these statistics need to be qualified. For example, it is pointed out that the lowest income group, who get such a miserable morsel of our economic pie, are not a permanent group but change from generation to generation. In the economists' parlance, they are a flow and not a stock. This argument seems to me to take nothing away from the argument that the lowest 20 per cent, so heavily made up of senior citizens and women who are heads of households, are suffering very badly under our economic system.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Chairman, I will speak briefly, but I did not want to miss the opportunity of mentioning that I agree with a number of things stated by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) this afternoon when he referred among others to the effects of our DREE program. His comments were particularly relevant when he said that since the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion some really serious inequalities have appeared within regions and I entirely agree with his statements. He is absolutely right and it is a matter which concerns me also very much but I feel that he has failed to point out the role or responsibility of provincial governments in the development of a policy to deal squarely with regional inequalities. I think in all fairness that we must recognize and respect provincial jurisdictions. I would have preferred that the hon.

member speak in a non-partisan way. The question is not whether Nova Scotia's provincial administration is Liberal or not, or whether New Brunswick's is Progressive Conservative or not. The basic question is far too serious to stop at partisan considerations. Be that as it may, it is apparent that since the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established by Parliament in July 1969, disparities have been getting worse in New Brunswick, between the richer areas in the south, including the cities of St. John, Moncton and Fredericton for instance, and the northern areas including to all practical purposes the rest of the province. The average income of people in the northern part of the province has been on a constant decline relative to people in the south. This is why I am very much concerned, as is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan). Certainly he can speak with much eloquence and conviction for his province of Nova Scotia, and I commend him for that. But I feel we must not enter into partisan considerations.
This leads me to suggest it is more urgent than ever that provincial governments in the Atlantic area and the national government here in Ottawa, and especially the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) sit down and develop together a plan to tackle regional disparities effectively and efficiently, taking into account the needs of all parts of the area, and putting and end once and for all to the injection of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars into the already thriving centres he referred to, as Halifax, St. John, N.B., St. John's, and Charlottetown. This is urgently needed. I have been urging this for a long time. I do it now publicly in this House. I do not mind stating I have already urged this a number of times in writing. I called attention to this problem a number of times during meetings in my province, in my constituency, in the House of Commons standing committees. But people have always been turning a deaf ear. I gladly recognize that I am not the only one to share these views.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, for the purpose of asking a question.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, in no way was my speech a partisan speech except in passing.


Eymard G. Corbin: It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague from the Maritimes misunderstood my meaning. I certainly do not wish to accuse him of partisanship. I could perhaps clarify my meaning by saying more precisely that I have mentioned this as an obstacle to avoid and not as an actual fact. I wish we could stretch out our hands in friendship across this aisle and work together for the full economic development of the Atlantic region. I do not know his region well, just as I suspect he does not know mine very well but I think it could be possible to transfer the problems of his area to mine even though there are great differences between both. We do not have his coal mines,
March 24, 1977

his steel mills but we do have other problems with regards to forest industry, agriculture and means of communication. But the basic point is that we understand each other. We talk of the inherent wish of the people living in these areas to work together, to see their two levels of government and even their three levels of government-if we include the municipalities- work together without partisanship to solve these problems.
In New Brunswick, either the required skills are lacking or people work with blinders, but it is an unmistakable fact that since DREE was created the Northumberland-Miramichi area, the northwestern region including Madawaska-Victoria and another area in the south of the province have not, for all practical purposes, derived any benefits from the hundreds of millions of dollars made available to the province, because those amounts were spent on urban centres whose situation was not that bad after all.
And when in the House we want to voice all kinds of reservations regarding bills or amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, we sometimes get the feeling that we are just speaking in a vacuum, that our colleagues from other parts of Canada do not or simply will not understand what we are speaking about.
As long as people in the Atlantic region are denied other means of earning a decent living without having to expatriate themselves, social assistance programs, such as the unemployment insurance plan, will have to be kept in place until governments actually get together and bring about in Canada the industrial development required to adequately meet people's claims for jobs and a decent living.
That is all I will say for today. I think the basic arguments have been made and forcefully so. I simply wish to echo these comments and I hope we can work together towards the solution of this problem.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity in the time allotted to me to return to the energy situation. I wish to express to the minister our appreciation for accommodating members on this side of the House by being here and having his officials present to listen to our side of the story and possibly answer what we think are some very pressing questions. I intend to indulge in a short discussion this afternoon which will add an entirely new dimension to the energy question, new at least to the minister and his department though certainly not new to those of us who have always been looking at energy policies which are designed for the future, having looked back to the past and evaluated what has been happening in the field of energy production and consumption.
I look on the government and this particular department as a group of crisis managers. I call them crisis reactors. "An Energy Strategy for Canada" was, of course, the result of the energy crisis of 1973, when we woke up one morning and found that our fossil energy reserves were not at all what the government and most of us, including industry, had perceived them to be. It is obvious to me, as it is to most people, that the
Interim Supply
need is for a long-term energy policy. By that I mean that we have to plan 25 years ahead. In order to do that, we must also look back 25 years to get a realistic picture not only of where we will stand 25 years hence but what type of energy we will be using at that time, and beyond, and the price we will be paying for that commodity.
In order to put that picture into focus, Mr. Chairman, one would have to take account of the total global community. I would be naive in the extreme to think that over that period of time Canada could plan its own energy strategy in total isolation and be able jealously to guard its reserve in isolation. One would have to take into account the present rate of growth in the world. There are presently four billion people in the global community; 25 years from now or by the turn of the next century there will be roughly 6.5 billion people.
It is only reasonable to assume that all these people will have achieved a much better standard of living, much closer to that of our own, and that to achieve any kind of breakthrough in the development of the third world and improve the standard of living in some of the underdeveloped countries massive amounts of energy will be required. It seems that the kind of lifestyle which we enjoy depends on gadgetry and the energy required for same. Canadians today are second only to the United States in the consumption of energy. Each family in Canada consumes roughly 55 barrels of oil every year. In projecting 25 years ahead we must take account of the fact that over the past 25 years consumption of energy by Canadians has tripled. Oil and gas 25 years ago met one-quarter of our total energy needs. Today they fill two-thirds of our requirements.
One of the first stages of a long-term energy policy would have to be a policy of conservation. I compliment the minister and his officials for at least recognizing that terminology. I am not at all enthusiastic about the early signs of his conservation policy. I do not believe that these primitivists in our society today are really serious when it comes to turning off the lights and turning down the thermostat. They let their hair grow and say that we have to return to a more primitive lifestyle, but if they were really put to the test I do not think they would be serious.
Furthermore, I do not think we would be as aggressive as the minister likes to tell us to be in turning off our lights at home and turning down our thermostats. Domestic requirements for energy are not really all that great. What we need to be doing, and what the essence of a conservation policy must be, is that our industries and our cities have to learn to convert some of the industrial and solid wastes. It is estimated by the minister's officials that every year we are wasting roughly as much energy as we consume. If trends which have been set over the past 25 years continue, and there is no reason to believe they will not-the trends I am talking about are the increase in our population and our treatment of energy reserves-25 years from now we will be consuming four times as much energy as we do today.
I think that puts into focus the kind of picture I am hoping to portray, namely, that in terms of the global community-

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
our own energy requirements and the requirements of North America 25 years from now-it should be quite obvious to anyone, and it is no great challenge to the imagination, to come to the conclusion that this globe and its fossil reserves will not be sustaining the demand on its inventory past the year 2000.
The obvious questions are: Where will we go, and what will we do? This government will likely wait until the crisis becomes real and more people indulge in deeper examination of the whole question. Then we will react to a crisis situation and implement all kinds of programs which not only will be very costly in human terms but in most cases will be irreversible in terms of the environmental and ecological penalties which we will have to pay.
I have a 14 year-old son, Mr. Chairman, who the other day wrote an essay in school. I suppose he got his information from an encyclopedia that one could go to, but the theme of his essay was that the sun, solar energy, would likely be the answer. As I say, he is only 14 years old and he says this in his essay, which I think is quite a compliment to him:
The most colossal dynamo of all is the sun, an unimaginably vast source of power which directly or indirectly affects everything on earth. If all the world's fuels were gathered in one place and burned at a rate to match the sun, they would be consumed in four days.
Although the sun is overcoming a distance of 93 million miles, if trapped, would be enough power to sufficiently supply the earth for over a year, in only two minutes! Considering the amount of energy available from the sun, man has been surprisingly unsuccessful in obtaining it.
What I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that this government has done nothing at all, or very little, to look ahead and examine some of the options that we will have to consider in the year 2000 and beyond.
A joint conference in which 13 countries took part was held in Winnipeg last year. The conference looked at solar energy in particular. Our scientists and officials attended. The American contribution to the conference was well founded and well documented, and their solar energy program was well planned. By the year 2000 they plan to draw from the sun 70 per cent of their needs. Over the next two years they have committed $260 million to solar energy development. If they were to make a firm commitment of the type they made to send a man to the moon, I say that in the next ten years there will be no energy shortage because between us we will have developed the technology to harness energy from the sea of energy in which we bathe every day.
One of our leading scientists at the conference showed a blank slide on the projection screen to portray the total amount of our research in the coming year in the field of solar energy. If we continue this approach to renewable resources, we will have to continue to rely on other countries, as we do in other fields of scientific endeavour, to produce the technology that is required to harness these new modes of energy. Also we will have to rely on these countries to produce the technology required to convert energy.
(Mr. Oberlc.]
The conference concerned itself also with cost comparisons. We all know what it will cost to bring to market the conventional reserves on which we rely under this government's long range energy policy. In comparison with the cost of renewable resources, the cost of conventional reserves will skyrocket every year as we push farther back to the frontiers, to the Mackenzie Valley and the Beaufort Sea. It will cost more and more every year as we convert heavy oil and tar sands, and there will be a steady increase to our consumers as our prices reach the level of world prices. In contrast with that, the kind of technology that is now being developed to harness solar energy will cost the most at first, but as it is used and refined, and as we convert our homes to the use of this kind of energy, the price will drop. There are no penalties to pay in environmental or ecological terms for the use of the energy which nature provides for us, and there is no limit to that resource in terms of renewable energy reserves.
The minister's officials estimate that capital requirements for the remainder of the 1970's will be $40 billion to $68 billion. Of course this will have to be recovered with the marketing of our oil. If we close our borders to foreign countries, Canadians will have to pay back the $40 billion to $68 billion. The energy policy for Canada indicates the spread in these huge amounts. In the $40 billion component, if we were actually to achieve a conservation program, we would be using less energy in the next two years. Then in the $50 billion program we would use about equal amounts to those we have been using recently. In the $68 billion program we would build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and several of the infrastructures which will be required to bring the frontier reserves to market.
I would like to hear the minister's response to my remarks when I conclude them. In view of the fact that he is such a proponent of Petro-Canada and of public involvement in the field of energy, I would like him to tell us whether he has asked his officials to estimate how much of the $68 billion will have to come from the public purse to be channeled into this field. Our forecasters estimate that from 1975 to 1990 we will have to come up with $31,000 per family to satisfy our energy requirements. Even solar energy is cheaper today. Surely solar energy, wind energy, and energy from the sea have been intended for man to use, but we have always taken the easy way out.
The minister made a critical comment about my colleague who said that the National Energy Board and the government are procrastinating in making decisions. Let me point out that it was a Tory government which had the first energy policy that ever existed. It was a Tory government which created the National Energy Board. It was Tory policy that established a two-price system-the first policy ever in existence in Canada so far as energy is concerned. It has allowed us to bring oil from the Middle East and Venezuela to our eastern shores, and has allowed us at the same time to harvest and develop our reserves in Canada and to protect our markets. The two-price system was certainly acceptable to eastern Canadians so long as the western price was higher than off-shore prices. But as
March 24, 1977

soon as these prices reached the same level, we soon found the means to equalize oil prices in Canada, and this government has learned to concern itself with energy matters.
Against the background of a long range energy policy, which takes into account that after the year 2,000 we can no longer rely on conventional reserves and will have to develop a new technology that will give us access to the renewable resources around us, we need to catalogue the remaining reserves we have. We need to know every cubic foot of gas and every barrel of oil that are in the ground, and how expensive it will be to market them. In the short term we must be very aggressive in defining our policies with regard to cataloguing our reserves. But then we must learn to plan the period of transition because it will take us 25 years to change our lifestyle and the economic and industrial strategies which we now have.
The most significant segment of our economy is related to the energy field, to the automotive industry, the gasoline marketing industry, and so on, and it will take at least 25 years to plan an orderly transition to allow different economic and demographic strategies to evolve. What is our government doing? It has not even recognized the fact that this kind of thing is necessary, never mind getting to work on it and doing something about it. When can we expect the minister to address himself to this very serious problem?
The problem is that all the policy announcements which come from the government are based on statistical information which is four or five years old; for example, the statistical information we have with regard to the government's intention to channel certain percentages of the available moneys to research. Phase one of "An Energy Policy for Canada' states that we intend to spend 70.6 per cent of our research dollars in the nuclear field and 13.4 per cent on coal. I assume that has to do with some type of coal-gasification or liquefaction for quicker conversion to energy. Oil and gas are to receive 10.6 per cent, and electrical 4.2 per cent. There will be 1 per cent spent on the tar sands, and the others will receive 1 per cent.
I see that my time has elapsed, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you will allow me to make a final comment. The initial priorities for energy research and development must be addressed to fossil fuels. These are the resources which Canada will rely upon to carry it through this century and into the age of nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies. If that is the case, what will we do when we need nuclear fusion and other advanced technology, and who will do the research, if not ourselves? Surely to God we cannot rely on Third World countries, and forever be parasites on the scientific community of the rest of the world.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can deal quickly with the remarks of the hon. member because I know that other hon. members are anxious to enter the debate, and some want to put questions.
Interim Supply
I commend the hon. member for his emphasis on the need for Canadian policy makers to keep their eyes on the long term, the year 2000 and beyond. As the hon. member knows, we have a report which takes us up to 2020. It is that kind of time frame we will be looking at, and we will be publishing a summary of a report this summer dealing with some of the longer term implications for Canada of the energy supply demand and the opportunities in renewable energies and other forms of energy. Our membership in the IEA is very helpful because other countries are doing the same thing, and we benefit from their work, as they do from ours.
I also commend the hon. member for his emphasis on solar energy. That is clearly one of the most important long term energy sources for the world, and I consider it very important for Canada. That does not mean that in the short term it is going to replace our dependency on oil, foreign or otherwise, or on any fossil fuels for that matter but it can play an important part in our future, and I think that the greater the emphasis on looking at solar energy potential, the greater will be the emphasis on the part of the public on conservation attitudes. I think that renewable energy and conservation go hand in hand. They reinforce each other because they get people thinking. They are self reinforcing.
The hon. member asked a question about investment, and he used the figure of $68 billion. I am not just sure where he got that figure. I am dealing with "An Energy Strategy for Canada". I think he was looking at an earlier report, "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase One", which was, interestingly enough, an analysis. It is properly described as an analysis as it came out just before the energy crisis itself. The energy crisis came a few months after it had been prepared and published, so that not surprisingly some of the figures in that report have now been superseded by events.
"An Energy Strategy for Canada", which was published last year, under "policies for self-reliance" on page 108 provides a fairly detailed schedule of the investments we estimate will be needed. This refers to capital requirements both in the private sector and in government in five-year time frames up to 1990, and there are two schedules. One deals with what is described as a high price scenario where conservation is likely to be more effective and the attitude toward conservation is likely to be more positive. Another deals with a low price scenario. Roughly one half of the capital expenditures in the high price scenario are expected to be for electric power. That would be for both generation and transmission. Clearly an overwhelming proportion of that would be federal and provincial government expenditure.
As I indicated earlier to the hon. member for St. John's West, there may be a need for federal government participation and assistance, particularly in areas like the maritimes and especially in Newfoundland, where the resources of Newfoundland will be needed for more than just Newfoundland- they will be needed for the maritime region as a whole-where the output of any one particular generating facility will be greater than the needs of the province in which it is located

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
and where the cost of that generation will be beyond the capacity of that province to finance.
On the question of renewable energy research and development, increasingly the government has been placing greater emphasis on the renewable side and the conservation side. In these main estimates there is a provision for an additional $10 million for energy research and development expenditures. The highest priority has been accorded to the renewable side, roughly doubling the investment in energy research and development over the previous year.


Frank Oberle: How much for solar?


Alastair William Gillespie: The next largest amount is for conservation. The hon. member asks specifically what the proportion for solar will be. I will have to find out that amount and give it to him in committee. Last year some 15 separate demonstration projects were funded across the country, but I will get the hon. member the figure on that.
The hon. member also referred to fusion. I am not sure Canada would benefit from fusion. I think we should take a very close look at the potential of our unique CANDU system. There is a strong possibility that a second generation CANDU, using thorium, for example, might well replace any need to consider fusion, which is still a long way off, and certainly any need to consider the fast breeder approach which some European countries are looking at and which the United States is still looking at.
However, the United States has scaled down the fast breeder approach in terms of its order of priority, according to the allocation of research funds this past year. I think we have in the CANDU a remarkable and unique national asset with an enormous potential, because I am told that the thorium cycle, for example, could be used in our existing reactors without any significant re-design of those reactors.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to probe one aspect of the energy question a little further with the minister before we move to the next topic, and that is the conservation aspect.
First I should like to take the opportunity to place on the record the extremely important contribution that parliamentarians can and hopefully will make to discussions on energy through the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, which I have the honour and pleasure of chairing. I might say that the hon. member for St. John's West, who spoke this afternoon, has made a substantial contribution to the work of that committee since he joined it as a relatively new member of the House. We have also the distinguished hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who has participated very actively over the last year or so as the representative of his party. There are also members on this side, such as the hon. member for Algoma, the hon. member for Wellington, and the vice-chairman, who is the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East, and others. It

seems to me there is an excellent opportunity through the work of this committee for members on all sides of the House to discuss the vital issues which affect Canadians in the field of energy.
We sought and obtained very general terms of reference that relate to the entire energy strategy report tabled in this House last spring by the minister. We have held two or three meetings in connection with that report but have had to leave it in order to deal with the matter of the estimates. Meetings are planned for the months ahead, and I hope we will be able to formalize these and get into areas of real interest and concern to Canadians.
I will mention a few of these areas, Mr. Speaker. We hope, subject to discussion within the steering committee in the near future, to deal with the question of energy conservation which is probably the single most important area of our entire energy strategy. No matter what we do about future development, figures reported to us recently indicate that by the year 1990 world-wide we will be consuming as much oil in one year as the entire production of the North Sea area. It is extremely important that we bear this in mind.
People are concerned about whether we are actually facing energy shortages or not. Various figures are produced from time to time, but we have to deal with the information at hand, so at the present time it would seem to be the case that by 1990, unless conservation measures are brought in and made an important issue throughout the world, the world will be consuming something in the order of 27 billion barrels of oil. That is a little more than the entire discovery of the North Sea area over a 15-year period. In four months we will be consuming the entire production of the northern slope of Alaska, which is about 10 billion barrels. The problem is there, and our committee intends to deal with energy conservation in a very serious way.
We also want to deal with the subject of nuclear power. Hon. members opposite have raised questions about this recently. It has been suggested there should be special committees, but our committee can deal with it. It is clearly a matter of increasing concern to Canadians, so it is difficult to imagine that our committee would not look into it. It will not be possible to consider all aspects of nuclear power development in a matter of several weeks, but we will endeavour to select the most important issues in the field.
Another area the committee intends to explore is energy transmission systems. The committee had the opportunity to do considerable background work during last year in another general reference dealing with oil and gas supplies in frontier areas and related pipelines. In fact the committee had the unique opportunity of travelling to some of the frontier areas and observing first-hand the difficulties involved in trying to get energy out of some of these fields. There is nothing like going to the tar sands site to see the difference between mining oil, which is done at the tar sands, and obtaining it through drilling operations. The former method is heavily labour intensive and costly, and very different from that to which people have been accustomed.
March 24, 1977

We went into northern frontier areas such as Rea Point, which is in darkness for a good part of the year. From there crews move into remote areas of the island for 60 to 90 days at a time. They are completely self-sufficient when they go out to try to find new sources of energy.
We had an opportunity to view the Alyeska project in Alaska, and see some of the difficulties in the construction phase and its aftermath. The problems of bringing in new sources of energy are tremendous and far reaching, so the matter of conserving energy and reducing the demand for new resources is very, very important.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River asked questions about conservation a moment ago. He is a valued member of the committee, but unfortunately was unable to be present at a meeting on February 22 when an official from the department made a very substantial presentation of some of the plans the department has in the area of conservation.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude what I was saying about energy matters before the committee rose for supper. Since I understand there is general agreement to consider the Post Office this evening, perhaps I can address a question to the Postmaster General.
I wish to make two comments in connection with energy. First, I raise the general terms of reference the committee has been given to achieve its objectives. I suggest that at the outset it will be necessary for us to divide the energy problems of the country into long-term and short-term ones. This afternoon I was speaking of some of our longer-term problems. Although the committee will agree they are serious, I think it will be appreciated that this country and other countries will face a more immediate crunch, so to speak, around 1985 or 1990. Therefore it is important for the committee to address itself to the short-term aspects of Canada's energy difficulties.
I encourage hon. members to participate actively in the work of the committee, in work which will be done in accordance with its terms of reference. Those interested in the subject should make it a point to attend our meetings and participate fully in our deliberations. There will be ample opportunity to question expert witnesses, hold general discussions and, it is to be hoped, make field trips.
Since it has been agreed that we are to consider the Post Office, I wish to raise with the Postmaster General a matter I have raised several times previously in the House. I raised it in questions during the question period twice, in two consecutive
Interim Supply
years, and also more extensively in a supply debate one year ago. I refer to the possibility of having some quasi-independent agency undertake the Post Office operation. I hesitate to use the term Crown corporation in view of some of the difficulties some of us have recently encountered in connection with the operation of Crown corporations in one of our standing committees. All the same, I suggest that a strong argument could be made for a study of this alternative. Perhaps the proposal could even be referred to an appropriate standing committee for consideration and debate. I say this because it seems to me that a separate agency, perhaps organized as a corporate structure, could handle Canada's mail delivery and perhaps resolve some of the complex problems we presently face in the area of mail delivery.
I have used the analogy before; I use it once again. I refer to the manner in which the production and distribution of electricity have been handied in my province of Ontario over the past 50 or 60 years. Had that whole area been left in the hands of a department of the government of Ontario, in my view we would probably not only still have the problem of our lights blinking, but the quality of the service would not be near the high degree that most people in this province have come to accept today through the medium of Ontario Hydro.
This does not mean to say that the creation of an agency, a quasi-independent body, is going to offer any magic solution to the very serious problems that face the Postmaster General in endeavouring to give Canadians the kind of service they want. However, it might be a step in the right direction.
If authority and responsibility could be exercised appropriately within a corporate structure of some form, there would be one place in which management-employee problems could be sorted out, and in which new post office locations and equipment could be decided upon and bougfit. I understand these are all things which are handled by different departments at present, and by the time you come back to the Postmaster General his responsibility in the over-all operation tends to represent only one segment of that operation as most Canadians understand it.
For whatever reason, we have to accept the fact today that there is a general lack or gap in the satisfaction level of many Canadians regarding the efficacy of our mail service, yet we are facing rates that are 50 per cent higher than they were this time last year when we were debating the same issue. It has been my observation, and the observation of others, that very often mail to and from overseas points can be despatched and received in a more efficient way than mail to and from points within our own country.
I appreciate the types of problems being faced by the Postmaster General. I know he is attacking these in the competent manner he has displayed since being appointed to this position. I know he is confident he will be able to overcome many of the problems facing the Post Office at the present time. I would appreciate his comments as to whether, in his view, adequate consideration has been given to the

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
alternative of placing the entire responsibility for the mail operation outside the departmental structure as we know it within the public service and into, I hesitate to use the term, completely independent, but some sort of quasi-independent agency such as was discussed by his predecessor in office during this debate a year ago.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Chairman, first let me extend to the hon. member for Scarborough West my thanks for the kind remarks he has addressed to me. I trust he has set the tone for this evening's discourse and that I can expect from all sides of the House that sort of implied approval of the way the operation is being carried on.
I would also like to indicate to the hon. member that I listened with a considerable amount of interest this afternoon when he was discussing the question of our joint foray into the Mackenzie Valley in October, 1975, under a different responsibility. It was a tremendous experience in terms of Canada's breadth and scope. Indeed, I am very much encouraged by the recognition of Canada's potential, not only in terms of Canada's resources, but in terms of the talent manifested on this side of the House by people of the calibre of the hon. member for Scarborough West.
I will now address myself to the question that is relevant at this particular time and to which an answer is required. The Post Office has for some time now been involved in studying the question of an alternative to the present structure and its particular relationship to the government as a government institution. As the hon. member for Scarborough West has so well indicated, the Post Office as a government department is dependent on other departments in order to achieve certain of its responsibilities. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the buildings we occupy are either leased or built by the Department of Public Works. We purchase a large portion of the equipment and supplies for our department through DSS. In our negotiations through collective agreements with our unions we have to receive the authorization, really the delegated authority, from Treasury Board. We are dealt with as a government department. That is the way it has been for some time.
Post Office departments in other jurisdictions have attempted to remove themselves from the grip of government bureaucracy. To date the experience in other areas has not been that encouraging. Those difficulties that the Post Office in Canada has had, and there have been some, have also been those of other jurisdictions. I call the hon. member's attention to decentralization in Great Britain and Germany, as well as in the United States.
In the United States, and I owe this information to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, notwithstanding the attempt to remove the Post Office from the political arena, the impression that one is left with in the United States is that the Post Office is still part and parcel of the government institution. So long has the tradition been in Canada of having the Post Office responsible to the political process that it would take more than one generation, even if a decision were made to have a Crown corporation, for the public to be persuaded that the

political process was not somehow involved in the postal service.
The situation is such that in our present economic context, as hon. members know from the estimates that have been tabled in the House, we are facing a deficit of somewhere in the vicinity of $671 million, more than 50 per cent of the total cost of operation of the Post Office. Having that sort of deficit, it would be very difficult to persuade the Canadian taxpayer that the political process and the post office, which is supported to such a large degree by the public treasury, ought not to be responsible through this particular institution.
I want to assure the hon. member for Scarborough West that decisions are being made now to intergrate the Post Office fully into the market place. Some six years ago we created a director of marketing, customer relations.


Walter David Baker: How many years ago?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Six years ago. It has really assisted the Post Office in adopting a more aggressive stance in the market place. It has resulted in large measure in the introduction of the mechanization process on which we are presently nearing completion.
In effect, what has happened is that we recognize the limits that we face as a government institution as well as the responsibility we face as that same government institution. We have tried to supplement the responsibility that we have toward the taxpayer of Canada, not only to justify the expenditure of public funds but to provide a service to the Canadian public by trying to integrate to a greater extent the commercial establishment, the commercial market place of Canada, and trying to play a bigger role in that area. This brings me in a very roundabout way to the issue of third class mail. It is an example of the way we are attempting to increase the volume that comes into the Post Office, and thereby increase our revenue.
Third class mail has received a very poor misnomer. It is referred to generally by the Canadian people as junk mail. I have given an example of how great that misnomer may be by using the example of-


An hon. Member:: A junk speech!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -by using the example of the mailing received by the Prime Minister shortly after the selection of the Leader of the Opposition last February. Members may recall that at that time the president of the Conservative Party, in attempting to solicit funds, sent to the Prime Minister, and to myself as well, a letter soliciting moneys, a letter soliciting funds, and also to the hon. member for Moncton-a letter which was received in the mails by all true Grits. That is truly junk mail!


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. member for Moncton on a point of order.


Mr. Jones:: I want to ask the minister a question. Was he referring to everyone who received that letter as Grits, or just to himself?


Jean-Jacques Blais: 1 was pointing to the hon. gentleman to my right, but if the hon. member for Moncton wants to be included in that category I have no objection. I am told that some others might have.
What I want to say is that what is, or what is not, unacceptable mail is really a matter to be determined by the recipient.
I want to put on record that third class mail, mail which is used by the manufacturing and retail industries in order to reach potential customers, is mail which not only brings additional revenue to the Post Office but is mail which serves the interest of the public. It provides information which is very helpful to the Canadian public. I would simply launch this plea to hon. members generally: discourage the use of that abhorrent term, and encourage constituents to use the mail and to accept the material which comes in the mail and from which they can glean information relating to products they may wish to purchase. As to that information which is not welcome in their own homes, and which is unsolicited, what they can do with it, very simply, is fire their own hearths. They can put it in the fireplace. It burns well, and it will encourage those who do market their goods via direct mail to make sure that the material they do send is in a form acceptable to householders.
I know I have not satisfied the hon. member for Scarborough West by providing him with the type of answer which is positive in content or which, perhaps, he was expecting. But I wanted to indicate to him that the Post Office, is becoming a brand new outfit, a brand new institution. We are experiencing slight difficulties for a short period of time because we are being modernized, we are mechanizing the whole process, but we recognize the obligation to service the public by delivering personal mail. We also recognize that we are an institution which is central to the market place, an institution of communication which has to be used by the Canadian public to the profit not only of the market place but also of the recipient, so that everyone will benefit from this institution which is marching along with the times.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I trust the Postmaster General does not intend to make a speech after every contribution to this debate tonight because what we are engaged in is the traditional custom of dealing with grievances, which used to be one of the sacred rights of parliament before the government was granted supply. We shall be bringing up certain specific grievances and I trust that the Postmaster General will try to come to grips with those problems, just as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did this afternoon.
I think the Postmaster General is labouring under self-delusion when he says the Post Office is an efficient organization. Obviously he is not reading the press, he is not listening to the dialogue which takes place here, and he is not reading the mail.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't get any.
Interim Supply


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is agreed by most people who are in a position to judge that the postal service in Canada is a pale shadow of what it used to be. Nine years ago Canada had an efficient, reliable, postal service. Today it is the butt of snide jokes. For example, when the further postage increases were made on March 1, two cents on top of the two cents added last September, the comment that rippled across the country, in the light of the poor service given by the Post Office, was that it must represent an additional charge for storage. We can all find examples of mail taking weeks to move across the country. Even the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying, "Everyone knows that the postal service is lousy".
The President of the Treasury Board, who is here tonight, is having great difficulty in bringing Post Office expenditures under control. The Post Office has been a special target of the Auditor General, as well. For example, in an article which appeared in Macleans in June 1976, there is a reference to departmental increases which are well beyond those permissible under Anti-Inflation Board rules. For 1976-77 the figure is $1,122,706,000, which is an increase of 25 per cent over the expenditure for 1975-76. Actually it went higher than that because there were supplementary estimates that added to the total. Of course this will be the case with estimates that are before us this year. There is plenty to grieve about. Some of my colleagues will also be grieving as the evening progresses. I do not want to deprive them of that opportunity.
The previous postmaster general began his career optimistically, and he was the fifth postmaster general since 1970. It is a short and vigorous life. Most postmasters general have talked themselves out of the job very early and suffered a very early demise.


An hon. Member:: Just one last round.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was just thinking that when I heard that comment by the hon. member for Scarborough West. I have before me a series of dissertations published by the Post Office Department. I think they cost some $25,000.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, they did not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps the Postmaster General can correct me on that figure. "What is Behind the Lemming Urge?" is the title. These are speeches that were made by the former postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey. I think we should read, at this time, the last sentence of the last speech in the collection so that the Postmaster General might get the proper perspective of the responsibility that is now his. It reads:
We are moving beyond ideology. We are responding to necessity. Our choice, as Buckminster Fuller said, is between Utopia and oblivion.
As I listened to the Postmaster General tonight, he was talking about Utopia. I am afraid he is going to fall between two stools and he might wind up in early oblivion unless he comes to grips with some of the problems we shall be bringing forward tonight.

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
Necessity is the mother of invention. Certainly there must be many inventive skills to come to grips with the many Post Office problems. The practice of the Post Office, in the past few years, has been to launch a study. We have had some 15 studies that have been completed. Most of them are gathering dust on the shelves of the Postmaster General. I have a question on the order paper asking for a reply in specific terms for information on each of the studies. They include the famous blueprint for change which was launched by the former postmaster general of 1968 to 1970, the hon. Eric Kierans, who is not with us. He started this dynamic process of change. The Postmaster General has referred to this. But the postal service has been going downward since that time. Prices have been going upward as well. The latest report is that compiled by Hayes Consultants in co-operation with officials from the Treasury Board. I trust that that report is going to be made available to all members of the House. It seems to me it could be a good basis for dialogue, and we all might work together to improve the postal service.
What we need now is not studies or words, but action. We have a new minister. He already has that feeling of being submerged by the very magnitude of the problem. He made a speech to the Postal Users' Conference in Toronto last November.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is four months ago.


Donald W. Munro: Plus ?a change mais c'est la meme chose!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Qui a dit ?a?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: "The public thinks that our people- employees and managers both-exemplify the best way not to run a Post Office." That was the minister's observations.


Walter David Baker: He said that?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I never said that. I do not know where you got that speech from.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, he said that last November. I am quoting from the speech.


Walter David Baker: Who is the guy who wrote the text?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister's speechwriter wrote it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Robert Turner: Order. The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris has the floor.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of an occasion when I was teaching Sunday school. I had a bright scholar, and we were talking about the children of Israel approaching the Red Sea. The children of Israel stopped at the Red Sea to pray. This young, bright student of mine was very impressed by the fact that the Bible said stop praying and get moving. I think that is an admonition we might give to the Postmaster

General at this time because what is needed is action and not studies, and certainly not the verbosity that we have heard here tonight.
I have been encouraged by the start the Postmaster General has made in carrying out his responsibilities. Almost every day complaints come to my office and I send them to the Postmaster General's office. I have been impressed by the fact that he was willing to deal with them. He has shown considerable insight in dealing with them. I hope he will continue to operate on that basis. Also in that speech last November, the Postmaster General-


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. Postmaster General on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I just want to indicate to the hon. gentleman that that speech was not delivered. If he wishes to quote from that speech, I want to point out that it was a speech that was written but it was a speech that was not delivered.


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Charles Robert Turner: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, if the Postmaster General says that that speech was not delivered, did he send it through the mail?


Charles Robert Turner: I must point out to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock that that is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sorry to hear the Postmaster General disavow the speech. Actually it was a pretty good speech. It was a much better speech than he made tonight.


An hon. Member:: He is not the writer.


Walter David Baker: Did he have a
speechwriter?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He said that the Post Office has the finest postal equipment in the world.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The speechwriter said that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He said that the Post Office has the unhappiest workers. Grievances are piling up, a backlog of 1,200 at that time. The turnover rate among employees is running at 40 per cent. The work force is plagued by absenteeism, slowdowns, walkouts and strikes. This exists even though, as the hon. gentleman said, wages are the same as for firemen and policemen.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I never said that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Postmaster General keeps denying that, but the publication of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers quoted the same speech.
March 24, 1977


An hon. Member:: You must have given it to them.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not give it to them.


An hon. Member:: You did. It went via junk mail.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: "P.M. Blames 3,000 Officials" is the headline in volume 6, No. 7, of "CUPW", the official publication of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, dated Nov.-Dec. of 1976.


Walter David Baker: Transport is in a mess. The Post Office is in a mess.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There were news stories carried about this speech. I am amazed that the Postmaster General disavows it at this time. I do not want to get bogged down placing responsibility for the problems of the Post Office only in one area, that is, in the area of unhappy labour relations, because it is more than a labour problem. As he said, we have gone through a revolutionary period of change in the Post Office.


Jean-Jacques Blais: 1 didn't say that, either.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This period of radical change has been carried forward without a sense of direction and proper planning. There have been no clear policy guidelines. The Postmaster General has not helped us in this regard tonight.
There is a lack of ministerial responsibility. The hon. member for Scarborough West raised this point. It has also been raised by successive postmasters generals. The Postmaster General does not really have responsibility for running his department. I do not want him to repeat what he has already said because he seems to have grasped that point. He is subject to Treasury Board, to the Department of Labour for labour relations, to Supply and Services for purchases, to Public Works for buildings, and so forth. This is why, in a question I asked the other afternoon, I urged the Postmaster General to seize the initiative and to get all these groups together, because after all it is his ultimate responsibility to come to grips with these matters.
There has been a process of managerial decentralization carried out. It has not been decentralization in the real sense of the word but merely a process of adding yet another tier of executive responsibility. There is no consultation, there is no delegation of authority, and there is no real communication between the regional offices and the national office.
I was talking about rotation of postmasters general in the past few years. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the same process seems to be going on with deputy postmasters general because Mr. John MacKay, who was deputy postmaster general from 1969 until recently, has now moved on to the Department of Public Works. I had the privilege of attending a farewell reception for Mr. MacKay, and judging from the tributes which were paid he had done an outstanding job and just seemed to be getting his teeth into some of the major areas of concern, such as the labour problem with which it had taken so long to come to grips.
Interim Supply
I have visited some post office plants in company with a few of my colleagues across Canada and been impressed with the quality of the labour force in the Post Office. Some 50 per cent of them are women and, as they say, our best men are women. Having talked to the employees on the floor, I discovered that the cause of this backlog of 1,200 grievances to which I referred is the little things, such as failure to deal with personal, human problems; failure on the part of supervisors and shop stewards to consult and deal with a difficulty when it arises on the floor of the plant.
What is needed in the Post Office is a wailing wall where people can get things off their chests. Perhaps we need what many modern industries have these days, a chaplain where personal problems can be dealt with. What is needed is a facility to meet human relations.
The mechanization and automation program has been carried on with unwise haste. This has resulted in delays in the opening of some of the major plants, particularly the bulk mailing plant at Mississauga. It has also produced unnecessary labour difficulties, particularly in the Toronto area. The Post Office has a major problem on its plate at the present time with respect to the long delay of up to two years in the opening of the bulk mailing plant in Mississauga because its chosen company to produce the computers to operate the bulk mailing plant, Computing Devices, has not been able to deliver.
I should like the Postmaster General to comment on how he is going to get around this difficulty. Our opposition post office committee was in the Mississauga plant just before Christmas, and it was a crying shame to see a vast area which should have been humming with activity, having been mechanized and automated, occupied by manual sorters who were attempting to cope with the accumulation of mail during the pre-Christmas rush period. The delay must have been costly, and perhaps it is one of the major reasons why the President of the Treasury Board is not able to bring Post Office costs under control. This is another indication that action is urgently needed, and I trust the Postmaster General will come to grips with that specific problem.
Reference has been made to the Post Office service in the United States. I was there last week and I was pleased to see that they are gradually solving some of their difficulties.


Walter David Baker: Are they ahead of us?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, they are ahead of us in many respects. They have their bulk mailing facility functioning. The one I saw in Washington-


Charles Robert Turner: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, may I simply reply briefly to a few points which have been made by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris before the hon. member for Greenwood speaks. First of all, may I indicate to the hon. gentleman that I did not agree that the control that the Postmaster General had

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
over the Post Office in terms of quality was not adequate. The difficulty is having to act, often having made decisions through agents.
As it stands now, the Postmaster General is responsible for negotiations with the five unions. The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris knows that. We are also responsible for the decision regarding what type of building should be built and where it is to be located. We have to act through DPW as a client of DPW, but the decision-making process is ours. We select through S-S the type of goods, supplies and equipment that we need, and they are purchased through the S-S purchasing facilities. So it is not the decision-making process that is hampered; it is simply a question of administrative convenience.
With regard to Mississauga, the hon. gentleman knows that the delay at Mississauga was not the result of labour difficulties or labour strife. As a matter of information-information the hon. member ought to have-the Toronto labour scene in the Post Office has been relatively quiet.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is due to the failure of mechanization.


Jean-Jacques Blais: No. So far as mechanization in Toronto is concerned, we have three plants in operation. The mechanized plants are in operation save and except the bulk facility in Mississauga. That has nothing to do with labour relations; that delay was caused by one contractor in that particular plant. I would invite the hon. gentleman to visit that plant. The Mississauga plant is really the most sophisticated postal plant. The difficulty is that there is some slight delay owing to a decision made to centralize the computer activity for the whole plant in one central computer. This had not been done before and there are difficulties in this regard. To obviate these difficulties we have decided to use the more orthodox process of using varius computers for various procedures, and in this way we have now completely transferred operations from terminal A to the three mechanized postal plants in Toronto. Within six weeks I am sure the hon. gentleman will join me in congratulating the Post Office staff on having transferred with as little inconvenience as possible under the circumstances.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, perhaps in my initial remarks I did use too much levity. We are not here to joke about the Post Office but to talk about an essential service in Canada. It is a federal institution which serves every Canadian citizen on a regular basis. It is true that it has been the butt end of a number of jokes, but I think this is completely unjustified. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris will agree with me that a great part of the criticism which has befallen the Post Office is unjustified.
In the early days, as the hon. member knows, the Post Office was the only mode of communication in Canada. In those days we had to traverse the country by railway, ox cart, or whatever means of transportation was available. There was no expectation of next day delivery. Today the Post Office is competing with modern communications technology, technology which produces instantaneous results. It is evident that within that particular context the Post Office will fare badly in

comparison. But in terms of the Post Office which the hon. member knew in his early years, today's Post Office is a most efficient and modern institution. As a matter of fact, by 1978, after our mechanization process is completed, we in Canada will have the most sophisticated and reliable postal service in any place in the world.
When the hon. gentleman tells me that the American system is better than ours, I say to him, fie, because that is completely inaccurate. I have visited postal installations in the United States and so has the hon. member, and they do not compare in any way with the sophisticated institutions that the Canadians have developed here. Surely the hon. gentleman should at least admit to his own pride in the high technology involved in our postal code system.


Donald W. Munro: Does that account for the delays?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member is complaining about delays. He has complained about delays before because he says that mail coming in from Great Britain is late. It is not late in Canada, it is late getting from Great Britain to Canada. I am not responsible for that service, but when it comes within our boundaries it is dispatched with all due haste in the way Canadians can expect their mail to be dispatched.
As everybody will agree, Canada is a leader in communications. One of the pearls in our communications system is the Post Office Department.


An hon. Member:: It is still in the oyster.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We are having some temporary difficulties because of the immense transformation within the institution. But the transformation is nearly completed. I just wish hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as members on this side, who criticize the service would consider the fact that the Post Office is still engaged in the delivery of hard mail, mail that we cannot stick on microwave or insert through wires which traverse the country, and that we still have to deposit it in a mail box on a street to be picked up by a truck and thereafter to be carried through a system which cannot compare favourably with the telephone and the telegram.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the Minister of National Defence is not here-I believe he is attending NATO meetings-but having listened to the Postmaster General, I am quite sure he would be capable of answering my questions as well as any other minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I had known the hon. member for Greenwood was not going to speak on the Post Office I would have taken some more time to make my comments because there are a number of other topics that are pressing and have to be discussed. I had hoped he would introduce those topics through the questions he would ask.
March 24, 1977

Having said that, and you, Mr. Chairman, having recognized the hon. member for Greenwood, let me say that if he wishes me to reply to his questions on national defence, 1 will be pleased to do that to the best of my ability.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am glad that my hope that the minister would answer my questions was justified. I want to assure him that it was with a sense of relief that I thought he would get off the question of the Post Office in a short time.
The subject I intend to raise is not a light one; it is rather serious. 1 regard it as being of some importance to the Canadian taxpayer.


An hon. Member:: And the Post Office is not?


Francis Andrew Brewin: There are other things even more important than the Post Office. We are in danger of imposing a grievous burden on future generations. I refer to the question of the proposed purchase of fighter aircraft at a price estimated at present of $2 billion. Their design, I take it, is for double duty purposes. First of all, in North America we are told we will have a long range interceptor aircraft, and also we will use them in Europe in various roles that I do not need to go into now. I do want to talk about the question of whether these fighter aircraft are needed or are not needed to defend North America. When I questioned the Minister of National Defence about this, he said with a kindly smile that they were designed to protect Canadian security. But I am afraid he is getting into bad habits from the company he is keeping. He did not begin to answer the question which I put to him, which was: how is Canadian security affected by this particular purchase?
I urge that we take a long and careful look at the military needs before we launch on an expensive venture such as the spending of $2 billion, which is the initial figure. We know from long experience that such figures usually multiply. At least that amount of money is supposed to be spent, and I suggest that we take a long and careful look at our military needs. I appreciate that this is a capital expenditure which will be spread over a number of years, but I also recall that it comes on top of $1 billion spent on long range patrol aircraft which were sold to us by Lockheed.
What is the purpose of a fighter aircraft so far as north America is concerned? These new aircraft are to replace the Voodoos which were designed to shoot down manned bombers which would attack Canada, presumably from a source in Europe such as the U.S.S.R. We all agree now that the Voodoos are obsolete, but I suggest that the substitute in defence, the new proposal, is equally obsolete because it is aimed at a non-existent threat. The fact of the matter is that any attack by manned bombers-and this includes the new proposed Backfire which is a medium range bomber which can be refueled to be a long range bomber-on Canada or North America would telegraph its punch, would give advance knowledge of the proposed attack, two or three hours before the weapons arrived, and we have on this continent the power to retaliate massively long before the bombers reached our
Interim Supply
shores. Indeed, most of the targets would disappear long before, and a massive retaliation could be launched and would be available which would completely and utterly destroy the U.S.S.R. as a society.
We live in a missile age, and some people have not caught up with that. They have an idea that a group of bombers coming over from one side can be shot down on the other side, which makes no sense at all in a missile age. We have to assume the sanity of those who might become military opponents, and who amongst the people in those countries would contemplate making an attack on North Amercia or, indeed, on Canada, which would invite their own annihilation?
We are told that this is necessary for deterrence. How much deterrence do we need? The world has surplus deterrents, enough to wipe out the people in both the super powers over and over again, and yet we are supposed to add this extra deterrent of being able to strike down a bomber which might come over to this country, in the face of the fact that we could create a situation in which the use of nuclear retaliation would be almost completely inevitable.
It is sometimes said, as I have mentioned, that this is for deterrence. To my mind that is an argument which makes no sense whatever. We must determine what is the most effective deterrent, whether we have it and whether anything we do or spend is adding one iota to the strength of our deterrents, and I suggest that the constant building up of the ability, to respond to a manned bomber attack, which will probably never happen, is a form of deterrence which is an utter and complete waste of money.
I would like to examine what we could do if we could save a large part of this $2 billion. I do not deny that there is some use for interceptors. We have to defend our sovereignty against casual intervention either in our air space or over our territorial waters, but we certainly do not need 120 or 160 up-to-date fighter aircraft to perform that particular function. The purpose of this large number of fighter aircraft, as I said, is to repel a large scale attack by manned bombers on North America or Canada. When we are talking about how much we could save if we scaled down this colossal sum, I suggest that we always underestimate the total amount required to carry out this kind of plan. My argument is that we should adjust the purchase to the actual need. That indeed is the essence of sound planning of defence policy.
It has been suggested that there is a counter attraction in the possibility of procurement in Canada. Of the six suppliers with whom we are supposed to be dealing four are American, one, I believe, is British, and the other is French. We have absolutely no arrangement, and may never have any arrangement, for procurement in Canada. Indeed when the matter came up before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence this morning, I asked some of our senior officials, and they said there was no assurance, no knowledge or even a tentative assessment or estimate of the amount of

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
procurement in Canada which will result from expenditure of this sum of about $2 billion.
I would like us to consider-because this is not an impractical subject-what we could do if we did not spend that amount of money on this kind of expenditure. We could use $2 billion in a number of areas. 1 am not suggesting we could use it for all of them. One area is direct job creation. Capital works, both federal and provincial, are needed in such areas as urban transit, which has been promised, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and parks. We need money for housing for low income Canadians, and we need it to buy insulation to save energy. We could use it-and we would use it-to increase pensions for senior citizens and to reduce the age eligibility to below 65. We could use it-and we need to use it-to cut personal income tax.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot spend our money on useless hardware and at the same time spend it on the social needs of the people of Canada. There are specific items. During the last election the Prime Minister promised an urban transit subsidy of $290 million. That is part of it, but I think the major area is direct job creation. It is estimated that we could create 200,000 to 250,000 jobs and reduce the unemployment rate from 7.9 per cent, seasonally adjusted, to about 5 per cent.
It is highly practical to suggest that we spend our money on things which are needed. We do not have infinite options. We cannot go on spending money which is wasted and at the same time do the things we need to do.
I do not blame Canadians or particularly the Canadian government. This form of insanity is pervading the whole world. Humanity as a whole is travelling down the road to disaster. We have distorted priorities. We spend $300 billion per year on armaments and other military expenses of that sort. The developing countries, as well as the great powers, spend money in this way. We spend a fraction of that amount dealing with starvation and abject poverty throughout the world. As human beings we are totally misusing the resources we have. We have the ability to deal with human poverty, but we use available money to pile up absolutely fantastic powers of destruction of humanity as a whole.
I am afraid that we in Canada too are in the process of having our attitude softened up by what General Eisenhower described as a military-industrial complex. We are told what we must restrain ourselves, but we are not supposed to restrain ourselves when it comes to extra defence capital expenditures. We in this House do not even go into them. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence does not go into them. The Department of National Defence does not really tell us how necessary those expenditures are and what purpose they serve. We are supposed to take that on faith.
I started by saying-and I will now repeat in closing-that in accepting this $2 billion proposal we in Canada are putting a burden on the necks of our children and grandchildren. We are acting as if we are not entirely capable of understanding the realities of life.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to take part in this debate until this point. I certainly do not want to speak for the Minister of National Defence because he is well able to speak for himself when it comes to matters of security concerning our country.
Before I start I would like to inform hon. members that today is a very special day for at least one hon. member. Today is the birthday of the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, who is in the chair at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: I should like to express to him, on behalf of hon. members of this House, our congratulations on this auspicious day and wish him many, many years of happiness and health in this place.
The hon. member for Greenwood made some very pertinent points about the defence of the nation. I have every respect for the hon. member but I must take issue with his comments about so-called senseless expenditures on defence. I think that concern has been exhibited by members of the New Democratic Party time and time again. The hon. member talked about the lack of restraint in capital expenditures proposed for the Canadian defence forces. I would point out that it was the restraint in the past that was imposed on capital expenditures for defence forces that brought us to the state we are in today where we must invest in capital works in order to bring our forces to the point where they are capable of maintaining their role in the defence of our nation.
This makes me think of the years between 1918 and 1939 when the United Kingdom found itself in a poor economic condition and had to suffer restraint and cutback. The history of the Royal Air Force shows that it almost ceased to exist because at that time there were some in the country who thought it could be done without. It was only through the efforts of a strong Conservative member between 1935 and 1939 that the Royal Air Force was able to maintain its place in the British military picture. It was Winston Churchill who assured the future of the Royal Air Force for Great Britain. As we know, it turned out to be the saviour of that country in the second world war.
The hon. member for Greenwood suggested that we do not really need a strong defence capability because our good friends to the south have plenty of aircraft and all the things he says we do not need. I would point out to the hon. member that when people become your protectors they cease to be allies. A country must be able to provide some protection for itself; some of the interest in the country's safety must be shown by Canadians.
It seems to me that as elected representatives we cannot allow our defence forces to deteriorate any further. I certainly endorse the move of the minister in upgrading the fighter capability of the Canadian Armed Forces. I back him in the upgrading of the
March 24, 1977

long-range patrol aircraft. Certainly, as the hon. member for Greenwood said, our friends to the south have the capability to protect us, if that is what we want, but I am not sure that this country wants to be protected by the army of another country.
I believe we also have to look to our commitments in Europe, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Our commitments there will provide us with our first line of defence should an agreement be broken between ourselves and the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact nations. I think we owe it to our partners in that organization to provide the young men and women whom we send to represent us in NATO with the best equipment possible. We can send the best troops. We have the best technological people, but without the equipment we might as well keep them at home-which is what our friends in the New Democratic Party would probably have us do-and forsake our commitments to other countries.
The hon. member for Greenwood also said there is no threat to security in the world today that is not nuclear or a missile force. The build-up of Soviet forces within the NATO bloc nations is at the highest point in its history. Since 1945 they have been spending at least 25 per cent of their gross national product on defence and a build-up of their armed forces.


Mr. Darling:: Don't forget their navy.


Crawford Douglas: And, as the hon. member says, their navy. The Kiev has been introduced to the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. This is a new picture that has been painted for the defence forces of the allies, if we may use that expression. It is the first time an aircraft carrier has been put into operation by the Soviet Union. We can call it what we want. They called it an armed missile cruiser in order to get it into the Mediterranean and they have violated a couple of international agreements in doing so. A picture of it shows that it is an aircraft carrier, no matter what they call it. It is the first instrusion. We cannot look upon it as a missile; we cannot look on it as anything but a conventional type of warship sent by the Soviets to do conventional warfare.
We cannot look ahead and say everything will be taken care of by missiles and nuclear warheads. This is the type of thinking that would get us into difficulty with the Soviet Union.
We must look at how the Soviet Union and its allies have approached their confrontation with our allies up to this point. We must look at the Cuban crisis, at Korea and other areas in which Canadians have been involved. They have used conventional forces to push as far as they possibly can. It is only when they meet determined resistance at the conventional level that they take the stance that they are not interested in overpowering any nation but are interested only in co-existence. If we, or the United States, or any of the free nations of the world want to take the stance that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations are not to be reckoned with in this particular fashion, then we have another think coming, Mr. Chairman. Elistory will prove that.
Interim Supply
It seems to me that the New Democratic Party has put forth the idea that we do not have to defend ourselves; that big brother to the south will protect us. At the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the United States this idea was put forth by many of the socialist members of NATO. Word came out from a meeting of the military committee that some were saying, "When you think of it, I would much rather be red than dead." Canada put its position. One of our delegates, an hon. member of the other place, put my sentiments and I hope the sentiments of all Canadians on the record at this meeting. He used the words of Patrick Henry, a famous American, and I echo those words. I think they should be used by all free men wherever they live. He said: "Give me liberty, or give me death." I would never say I would rather be red than dead.
I said this because I think someone must put that side of the story before this committee. I, for one, back the program of the Minister of National Defence for spending $2 billion, or whatever the sum may be, in order to provide our young men and women with the best possible machines. They need those machines, not only to do their job in Canada but to do that job around the world which Canadians over the years have done so well.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as the various parties of the opposition agreed, for Bill C-45, to limit their remarks so that it might be passed as quickly as possible, so that the government might administer Canada's business as effeciently as possible, I should like to say that my own observations will be very brief, but to the point, and will bring elements of solution so that we can quit going around in circles without finding practical means of breaking away from the financial dependence that prevents us from being ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only member of my party to participate in the debate, and I would not want tomorrow's newpapers to accuse the Social Credit Party of Canada of killing time and preventing the government-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no, no; they won't say that.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -from getting bills passed to ensure Canada better administration. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had me among others as a guest for dinner tonight. It was not a patronage dinner but a dinner for reflection where we were honoured by the presence of an FAO representative who reported on the efforts made by Canada to help reduce poverty in the world, to enable human beings like us to meet their own needs.
Mr. Chairman, if we could have practical and in-depth discussions in the House, just as those we had during this dinner, I think we would have a better mutual understanding and that we would not have to expand on the financial needs of the country to provide for services for the Canadian people. Mr. Chairman, during this dinner, I was proud to hear the

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply
Minister of Agriculture, speaking on behalf of Canada, describe the efforts made by our country to help mankind.
Mr. Chairman, those people in misery have the same God as we have in this country. We Canadians should draw inspiration from the same feelings we have when it comes to help others. I suggest that we should take the opportunity offered to us tonight in the debate on Bill C-45 to try fraternally together to find ways of preventing those who control credit in our country from selecting our standard of living and deciding who should work and who should not.
I see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his seat. I congratulate him for the efforts he has made through programs in which I have enormous confidence, and I have already said so in the House. I am talking of Canada Works and Young Canada Works. I am pleased with those programs because I have deep convictions about the virtues of work. I believe it is a valuable tool which allows each and every individual to achieve something to meet his own needs.
Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed, but I do not want to offend the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, when I learned what estimates were available for such a satisfactory program throughout Canada. It is not the responsibility of the minister but of those who control the credit of the country as well as the program-


An hon. Member:: The LIP program!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, the LIP program which I have often mentioned and I say so in reply to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). I have often mentioned it in the House and said that I approved the improvements to the program which, when well managed and enforced, has created jobs in underprivileged areas and guaranteed a purchasing power enabling the under privileged to get the necessaries of life.
Mr. Chairman, my comments are not to be considered as those of a member who objects to everything and does not acknowledge the good points of the government. Absolutely not! However I should like to do my share so that we may understand more all together. Why, when dealing with hard working and dedicated people, are we always paralysed because of the absence of the almighty dollar sign?
Mr. Chairman, I should like hon. members to stop and think about this damn dollar sign-I apologize for the expression- which rules the world, the government and the parliament of Canada. How is it that our efforts are paralyzed by a dollar sign, while claiming that we are Christians and as such, willing to live under the sign of God. The sign of God, what is it?


An hon. Member:: He is the one who gave us the dollar!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Absolutely not! It is a sign of distribution and friendship among the people of the world.
Mr. Chairman, through Bill C-45 the government is asking parliament permission to borrow $7 billion; what for? To be

able to administer the various departments in this country. But no one among us asks, but how is it that there are so many Canadians who want to continue to work, to produce, to make the necessary efforts to allow this country to develop, and that we should be paralyzed because of that mystery that is money? That is not new, Mr. Chairman.
In 1939, for older people and for the information of younger people who need to be informed, the hon. member for Bona-venture-lles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard)-I should watch how I call his riding because he once reprimanded me on that but in any case, he is a friend of mine and he understands quite well that I always consider him as one of those members who made his contribution in this House to ensure a better administration of this country and when he teases me, it is because he loves me.


An hon. Member:: Spare the rod and spoil the child.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Absolutely, spare the rod and spoil the child, but he is not punishing me because I do not consider that to be a punishment but rather an invitation to express myself more clearly.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in 1939, we were going through the same times as now, a period of unprecedented unemployment. It was terrible then and when people asked the federal and provincial governments for moneys to carry out public works in such or such a place, the answer given by governments was always the same-we do not have any money.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, a fantastic man by the name of Dr. Louis-Philippe Roy, who was the editor in chief of L'Action Catholique in Quebec City wrote an editorial that should be meditated on today because the problem has remained unsolved and is the same today. I am not accusing anyone but there are indeed over one million people unemployed out of 23 million in Canada. It is not normal to have so many able-bodied people doing nothing-something must be done. And at that time, Dr. Louis-Phillipe Roy asked the following question: Mystery to be solved? It is a mystery that we have to solve tonight with Bill C-45. How to get the money needed to maintain the administration. A mystery to be solved in 1939. A mystery to be solved in 1977. This is what he said: The years go by and the crisis still exists. This was called an economic crisis. Today we also have an economic crisis and it still goes on. He went on by saying:
It was supposed to last three years, five at the very most. It has been going on for 10 years-
Since 1929. The market crash of 1929 of which I am a victim, like all those of my generation. I remember it.
And no sign of real prosperity is looming on the horizon. September 1939. Why is the crisis lasting this long? Why do we have this unemployment in 1939? Why do we have this unemployment in 1977? Why this famine in a period of abundance?
Mr. Chairman, I think that the time has come seriously to ask ourselves one question. Who governs the country? Mr. Chairman, is it not time to have courageous men? The party has no importance for me, courage is the most important thing. Courageous men, leaders who are able to face up to the
March 24, 1977

financial dictatorship of private banks. I know that some people, some reporters will say: Bah! The hon. member for Bellechasse is attacking the banks! I am not attacking the men who manage the banks, but the system, the privilege they have been given to control the money supply of our country for their own benefit, their own advantage, without thought of the common good.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), before becoming prime minister, said something very similar to what I am now saying, and that it is not because of ignorance that he refuses to act. It is because he is not sufficiently supported by all of Parliament. We should unite, whoever the prime minister may be and whatever his party; he is the head of state in Canada. We should have the courage to tell him frankly that we want financial reform in our country so that the masters of finance, the masters of the dollar bill may be submitted to the same legislation as the weakest and the most humble people in our country, because we cannot tolerate a legislation of exceptions. Mr. Chairman, since I have promised the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) not to speak too long, and even though I could go on logically for two hours, I shall stop here to allow him to express his opinions.
I hope very much that in his statement he will support the comments I just made in order that those who control the dollar sign will know what is going on. This has nothing to do with the Bank of Canada, so let us forget it for now. I wish it were the Bank of Canada but it is not. I would like him to support my remarks in order that the Canadian government, the cabinet and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras)-who is now listening with angelic attention-might understand the sincerity and the fairness of my comments which some have already made inside and outside the House.
Mr. Chairman, I am prepared with all my colleagues to approve all monies required in Bill C-45, but I hope that between now and the next session they will seriously consider the possibility of making better use of the Bank of Canada, the bank of all Canadians. That is a name we should be proud of because that bank should have total control over the money supply in this country. Other institutions should be subject to its instructions. That is what the hon. member for Bellechasse is proposing tonight along with all his colleagues and I hope that in the coming weeks we will spend part of our time trying to clear that mystery: where does our money come from? Mr. Chairman, I conclude here, thanking you and all my colleagues for having listened so carefully.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Chairman, as we approach the hour of the arrangement to deal with the bill before us, there are one or two comments I want to make. I want to begin by giving the usual assurances as to the form of the bill, that is, that the proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to June 30, 1977. In no instance is the total amount of an estimate being realized, the form is the usual one for interim supply bills, and passage of the bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges
Interim Supply
of members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for debate.
We did get notice from one party, well in advance, that they wanted to concentrate on the Post Office Department and on the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. If we repeat this arrangement in the future it will, I am sure, prove to be a most useful one and enable us to ensure that the minister and, where necessary, the officials, are available for a concentrated discussion of these issues. I regret we were not able to arrange for the minister to reply to the concerns felt by the New Democratic Party. I think it is understood that the Minister of National Defence is away at NATO, but later, perhaps, notice can be given in advance and it will be possible to get the minister here.
In general the questions asked have been well dealt with. I should like to react to one comment which was made in the course of the eloquent plea from the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. He made one comment which puzzled me-I shall check it in Hansard tomorrow. It was the suggestion that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is somehow biased against the Atlantic provinces, more particularly against Cape Breton-Cape Breton Island. I think he said too large a proportion of the funds had gone to the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Mr. Speaker, the facts do not bear this out.
The misunderstanding might have stemmed from an article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which unfortunately dealt in a selective way with only one or two of the aspects of the work of DREE. I am sure the hon. member would prefer to have the facts rather than the distortion of facts as they appeared in the Chronicle-Herald. The facts are that RDIA spending in the fiscal years between 1970 and 1976 amounted, in Nova Scotia, to $38.65 per capita; in the Atlantic provinces generally it amounted to $36.89 per capita; in Quebec, to $24.39; and in Ontario, to $4.93.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Might I bring it to the minister's attention that if I abide by the order which was previously adopted unanimously by the House on March 21,1 .would be obliged at this time to proceed with the putting of every question necessary to dispose of the different stages of this bill. However, there seems to be an agreement that I should not see the clock in order to allow the minister to complete his remarks and perhaps to allow one or two other members to intervene in the debate, and then I would put the question as we got close to ten o'clock. Is that agreed?


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order concerning what the minister just said-

March 24, 1977
Interim Supply


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am trying to get unanimous consent and I should like to deal with one question at a time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are happy to agree with the suggestion. It cannot be an order, but I hope that those who do take part in the next 15 minutes will make their contributions brief so that three or four might have an opportunity of saying a word.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the proposal you just made and, as I said in my speech, I wish to let my colleague from Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) express his views on that matter. I wish to make it clear. I do not want to prevent him from participating in the debate.


Gérald Laniel: I point out to the hon. member that it is not the Chair that takes most of the time.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I might-


Gérald Laniel: I agree to give the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria a chance to rise on a point of order but he takes the time available for other members. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, my point of order concerns the fact that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said he might have very well understood the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) this afternoon; I agreed with what the hon. member had stressed. He might have said what the minister reports, but, in fact, he said that in the Atlantic area the gap is even wider between large centres and rural areas. He insisted on this fact.


Robert Knight Andras: I take that last comment very seriously. However, so that we can deal with this matter in proper perspective I propose to place the true picture on the record. Total DREE spending for the period from 1969 to 1976 came up as an annual per capita expenditure in Nova Scotia of $50, in Prince Edward Island, $173, in New Brunswick, $80, in Newfoundland, $94.50, in Quebec of $17, and in Ontario of $2.50. I question very much whether these figures would lead to the conclusion that, on a per capita basis, the money is going to the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
Let me give the committee some figures in relation to DREE commitments under the general development agreements and the Prince Edward Island comprehensive development plan, phase two, by province from 1974 to date. Nova Scotia is getting $ 194 per capita-this does not include Devco; the Atlantic provinces will receive $362; Quebec, $40, and Ontario $6.50. Again this demonstrates there is no bias in favour of Quebec, Ontario or the central provinces. Dealing with Nova Scotia, precisely in terms of the understandable comments made by the hon. member about his own area, let me point out that Devco expenditures, which are 100 per cent

federal dollars, amount to $377 per capita, or, divided among the Nova Scotia population as a whole, some $81.1 thought the committee would like to have these figures on record as opposed to information which appeared in a spurious article in a newspaper which had not taken the trouble to do its research properly.
There are distinctions here, too. For instance, there is the fact that in the area of cost-sharing the general development agreement system allows great flexibility, which unquestionably favours the Atlantic region. All of our agreements with Quebec except one are shared on the basis of 60-40, that is, 60 per cent federal, 40 per cent provincial. The other agreement, the one I excluded, is a 50-50 package. All our Ontario agreements are cost-shared on a 50-50 basis. In Nova Scotia the agricultural, mineral development, and industrial development agreements are cost-shared on an 80-20 basis. Cost-sharing arrangements in the strait area, and in connection with the Halifax-Dartmouth agreements vary with different projects and programs but average between 70 and 80 per cent federal. Of course, as I said, Devco funding is 100 per cent federal. I just wanted to get that on the record, Mr. Chairman, so that we may move forward to a position of factual understanding rather than distortion. The hon. member's comment that this does not in any way solve the problem is very definitely true. But at least if we move to a position of understanding what is actually happening, rather than taking another approach to it, we are in a better position to respond to the policy.


Stan Darling: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure finally to be able to say a few words this particular evening with respect to the Post Office estimates. I am delighted to see my colleague and neighbour from Nipissing, the Postmaster General, here. I listened with interest to his two speeches on the great Canadian Post Office. I know the Postmaster General and I have had many visits back and forth regarding the time some of the mail takes.
When I see in the Toronto Star, that great Liberal daily, a letter headed "Canadian Mail Worst In The World", I am just wondering what the Postmaster General says to that. The next one underneath that reads "Postal Service is 'Disgusting' ". Another says "We Deserve Hearing on Postal Coding", and a fourth is headed "Post Office Wastes Public's Efforts". That certainly surprised me because the Postmaster General probably is not aware of this, and neither are any of his officials. This particular case outlines that one of our citizens noticed one of the mailmen in Toronto picking up mail at one of the local mail boxes. There are two of them. One is for local mail and one for is for out of town fast mail, and he dumps them both in the same bag and throws them in his truck. I guess that would provide more work when they get back to the central office.
We know that things can be improved with the Post Office Department and with a lot of post offices. As far as the rural post offices and the post offices in the small towns and villages are concerned, I feel they are especially dedicated people and
March 24, 1977

they are the ones who get the mail out. If it comes in there on a certain day, it is delivered on a certain day, and vice-versa. It is when it gets into some of the monstrosities in Toronto, that super wonderful Mississauga baseball field, when it does eventually get going, that the trouble really starts.
I have mentioned newspaper mailing service before to the previous postmaster general. I want to get an up-date on the service at the present time. That is the service with respect to our very important weekly newspapers and how they are being routed. Write this down, J.J. It is very, very important. I called four or five of the newspapers in my own riding today. Pay particular attention to this quote, Mr. Postmaster General, because it comes from a very eminent weekly newspaper, the Herald Gazette, which reads:
We would have to give a great deal of credit to the Bracebridge postmaster for his assistance in making certain we were able to route copies of the paper that go to distant points so that they will travel directly to those places, avoiding Toronto, and he has been very helpful in that and the result is that they are getting prompter delivery.
First class mail going to Toronto, especially in the last month, has been delayed unconscionably. Mr. Bob Boyer can quote any number of instances. A letter containing an order that was mailed on March 13 was delivered in Toronto on March 22 and the business that received it telephoned to say how it had been delayed and they were experiencing similar delays every day in their incoming mail.
He goes on to say:
Because of the terrible tie-up in mail in Toronto, the new Postmaster General should be on the job trying to improve the situation instead of going around the country making partisan speeches trying to blame everybody else but his own party for national disunity.
I raised my eyebrows and thought that that would be absolutely impossible. However, I picked up the Parry Sound North Star, a very eminent paper, which read: "Postmaster General says Tories are not helping national unity".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: As far as national unity is concerned, here are some figures: our Prime Minister, when he was the minister of justice in 1966, said 2 per cent of the Quebec population were separatists. When he became Prime Minister in 1968, 10 per cent were separatists, and in 1976, 41 per cent were separatists.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: To go on to another newspaper, the Graven-hurst News, the editor, Lou Specht, said:
I could take an hour to tell you about that. It is too terrible. It has gotten to the point now where I no longer have the time to write our subscribers personally trying to explain that we are doing everything that we can. People in Toronto, for instance, who perhaps don't get their copy of their paper at all or else they get it two or three weeks late and things of that nature. So I finally did a form letter that I thought would apply to almost every situation, and run it off on the copying machine and just fill in the person's name and send that off to them.
The great North Star that my friend, the Postmaster General knows about, says:
Interim Supply
We don't seem to have had as much problem with distribution or with subscribers as we had, partly because we are making more effort ourselves. We put postal code on everything. It is certainly very good in our area.
The Almaguin News, another newspaper, said that they were having serious problems. 1 also contacted another paper, the Huntsville Forester. The editor, Peter Rice said:
We get flack every week. Usually a trace is put on at the post office and the problem corrects itself. People receive newspapers which are 10 to 14 days old. This is in the Toronto area. This month Toronto is the worst area. Just before Christmas they were having problems with the western papers and Weston in particular in the Toronto area. Poor delivery in the States but it is probably due to the American system.
I am sure the Postmaster General would want to echo that.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being after 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to the order made on Monday, March 21, 1977, to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the committee of the whole stage of the bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule A agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule B agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule C carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule C agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule D carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule D agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule E carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule E agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule F carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Schedule F agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Adjournment Debate
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question at this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order that has been adopted, all of the questions are to be put at this time. The hon. member has only the privilege of voting for or against the question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has a point of order or a question related to the business of the House, not to the bill just passed, he can raise at this time before we proceed with the adjournment debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency situation in my riding so I rise on a point of order and would ask Mr. Speaker to consider the matter that I would have raised had I not been ruled out of order. There is a strike in the post office in St. John's, Newfoundland, and there are $2 million worth of unemployment insurance cheques caught up in that strike.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This is not really a point of order which is related to the business of the House. The hon. member will have an opportunity tomorrow, if he desires, to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity after eleven o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, as reported at page 4064 of Hansard, 1 asked the following question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald):
[The Chairman.]
March 24, 1977
Recently the Anti-Inflation Board ruled that Hostess Foods had made considerable excess profits on the marketing of their potato chips, all in eastern Canada, and to refund this excess profit to the consumer the company plans to issue 20 cent coupons, price reductions and free goods in certain sizes of packages, but all in British Columbia where they have never been in the market. Will the minister give an undertaking that he will instruct Hostess Foods or the Anti-Inflation Board officials to instruct Hostess Foods to restrict the distribution of this cut rate product to the market where they made the excess profit?
Since I asked that question of the Minister of Finance, I have found out that the situation is even worse than I thought. It has now been confirmed that local processors could easily be driven out of business because of this impending action by Hostess Foods. It appears that the firm has elected to break into new western markets, and it is reported that they have bought four vans and hired driver-salesmen to peddle Hostess products around Vancouver and offer the items I have already mentioned. None of this apparently is being passed on to that section of the public that was originally overcharged.
In addition to that, apparently the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board was made recently and it is now reported that this excess profit was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million. That is not chicken feed, Mr. Speaker. All of this profit was made in eastern Canada-Ontario, Quebec, and possibly the maritimes. It has since come to my attention that General Foods may be in violation of section 31(1 )(3) of the Combines Investigation Act because they are allegedly planning to engage in the practice of selling a product at a price which is unreasonably low, which will have the effect of substantially eliminating competitors, or which is designed to have that effect.
In addition to that, I find that as early as January, two or three months ago, the management of General Foods was in Las Vegas and there met with the management of some of the local processors and are alleged to have threatened to move in and put them out of business.
There are several issues here. First of all, there is the problem with the Combines Investigation Act and the fact that Hostess Foods could well be in violation of that act. I charge the minister to investigate that and to do it quickly and thoroughly.
Second, it would appear that the company is trying to break into a market by having its excess profits act as a subsidy in breaking into that new market. It seems to me that that is entirely in contravention of the spirit of AIB. Surely the Anti-Inflation Board regulations and legislation were not designed to help a company move into a new market and find ways of getting around the regulations, thereby defeating the local companies. Under the restraint program and the AIB regulations, the market place is a fragile enough institution and we do not need a subsidy of this kind to break companies that are supposed to be well established, or at least have done their own work to establish their market.
In addition to that, one of the local co-operatives is still liable for 1,400 tons of potatoes contracted to local firms. With that kind of contract still having to be fulfilled and an eastern company coming to the market place, what will happen to the local processors?
March 24, 1977

It is also reported that the company plans to build a factory, some kind of processing plant, in Lethbridge, 800 miles away. Presumably it will do so with the funds it will have to refund as a result of the AIB decision. What will that do to the local farmers who are depending on a market they have established through much blood, sweat and tears over the years? Now we have the unconscionable decision on the part of what is a multinational corporation coming in from the U.S., forming a Canadian company in Canada, and then helping to break the Canadian market. It is incumbent on the Minister of Finance to provide an answer for these people to preserve the competitive society that has made our country what it is today and not allow the regulations of the AIB to frustrate the local market and destroy the competition upon which our system is based.
I call upon the minister to correct that situation and ensure that the officials of his department will investigate Hostess Foods, either through the Combines Investigation Act or through the regulations of the AIB. I might add that AIB officials have already conceded the fact that they have made this ruling on Hostess Foods, and I hope the Minister of Finance will press the officials of AIB to make sure that federal laws are not being violated. I hope he will bring Hostess Foods to task and will preserve the market place in an undisturbed fashion in British Columbia, the way it should be protected by a government.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) which was addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on March 17, we think that the question contains a number of assumptions. On behalf of the minister responsible for the Anti-Inflation Board I should like to clarify the situation as it relates to the obligations of Hostess Foods under the Anti-Inflation Act.
The hon. member stated in his question that the AIB had ruled that Hostess Foods had made excess profits. Under the Anti-Inflation Act regulations, the firm files quarterly reports, and the last report signalled a possibility of excess revenue. According to the guidelines, excess revenue is not identified until the close of the firm's fiscal year. Thus Hostess Foods did not have excess revenue, nor did the Anti-Inflation Board rule that the company had excess revenue. However, the company of its own accord is currently taking action to eliminate the possibility of excess revenue by forms of price reduction both in the east and, more extensively, in the west. Since the firm has not yet had excess revenue, it can take any action in any region it chooses.
Under the rules of the anti-inflation program relating to prices and profits, when a firm is identified as having excess revenue that is beyond the level permitted under the program, it must file what is known as a compliance plan to show how it will divest itself of the excess revenue within the following six months. It is this plan which must be approved by the AntiInflation Board, if the need arises.
Adjournment Debate
Nonetheless, I am sure the hon. member from British Columbia will be pleased to report to his constituents that they are able to buy reasonably priced potato chips.

The minister had this to say in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), and I quote from page 4064 of Hansard for March 17, 1977:
I have to point out to the hon. member that in a law passed by this parliament the Anti-Inflation Board has been given the responsibility of making this kind of judgment and, indeed, making appropriate arrangements with the particular firm found in an excess revenue position as to how this is to be returned to the public. In that sense, his suggestion that I might direct the board to do this is counselling an illegality.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED LOAN TO CHILE BY CANADIAN BANKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on November 18, 1976, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) the following question:
-is the Canadian government prepared to convey to the banks Canada's position on the Chilean junta's disrespect for human and civil rights in that unfortunate country and ask them to respect both the moral position of the Canadian government and the technical and economic unacceptability of the loan?
The government well knows the atrocities and abuse of human dignity perpetrated by the vicious Pinochet regime in Chile. It knows full well because Canada voted condemnation of the junta's tactics at the United Nations based on reports by United Nations agencies.
Indeed in its first three years of rule, according to estimates of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the military dictatorship has killed 30,000 people and imprisoned another 100,000, many of whom were horribly tortured. Hundreds of thousands were expelled from the country, or have themselves sought exile. The junta has suspended congress, outlawed the activities of all political parties, closed down the central workers' federations, many unions and community organizations, censored education, and stifled public freedom of expression, including the press.
Condemnations of the regime have been issued by such international organizations as the United Nations, Amnesty International, the International Labour Organization, and the World Council of Churches.
Pinochet is adamant. He insists that he will never return the country to democratic rule. He is quoted as having said, "I am going to die and the person who succeeds me will also die, but there will be no elections."
Here at home national organizations have expressed their opposition to Canadian participation in helping to bail out the facist regime in power in Chile. For example, the Canadian Labour Congress passed a resolution at its annual convention in May, 1976, which stated that "any corporate investment in Chile at this time oppresses the Chilean people and disgusts their Canadian friends."

March 24, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Policy statements have been formally adopted by the Anglican and United churches of Canada urging a halt to all investments and loans to Chile until fundamental human rights are restored. Similar positions were expressed by the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops and by the Lutheran church in Canada. Not content with issuing statements, the churches have taken their protests to annual meetings of corporations involved, but were disregarded despite well documented information of human rights violations in Chile.
In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, three Canadian banks-the Royal Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia are each putting up $8.2 million, and the Toronto-Dominion Bank is putting up $4.2 million-formed part of a United States led consortium to lend $125 million so that the Chilean junta could roll over its debts to European creditors who have been critical of it and unwilling to extend further financing due to human rights violations.
These same banks at home cannot find the money to lend to low-income borrowers because the banks say they are poor risks, but they can find it to lend to the poorest risk in the western hemisphere, the Chilean junta.
In the last days of the Allende government, unemployment stood at a record low of 3 per cent. It has now rocketed to 20 per cent, by official estimates. Outsiders say one out of every four members of the Chilean work force is unemployed; 70 per cent of the workers earn less than $50 per month; a quarter of the population, 2.5 million people, had no income at all by mid-1976 and had to depend on handouts from churches and other humanitarian organizations.
The military has dismantled state involvement in social development and public services. Prices have been allowed to rise astronomically, with inflation running at 340 per cent in 1975 and 174 per cent in 1976, by official figures. The share of national income going to wages and salaries dropped from 63 per cent to 38 per cent in only three years.
The minister's response to me that day was most revealing. He said:
-I would say the banks are already aware of the Canadian government's position with regard to Chile. In so far as exerting any influence, however, this is a private banking transaction and I see no reason why we as a government should interfere in any way.
That argument does not wash, Mr. Speaker. Did the government think it was a private banking transaction when the banks agreed to observe the Arab boycott of companies doing business with Israel? No, the government did not. The government very quickly issued a policy position denouncing the practice. Yet with respect to Chile, where human dignity is involved, they cast a blind eye. I dare say if these were the days of fascist Germany the minister would be saying the same thing. Have we learned nothing from Hitler? Obviously the banks are prepared to do business with Satan himself as long as there is a buck to be made.
I call on the government to put its muscle where its mouth is with respect to moral responsibility for Canadian investment abroad. 1 ask it to declare unequivocally that it disapproves of any Canadian investment in Chile, that its agencies will

finance none, and that it discourages any Canadian investment in Chile until human and civil liberties are restored. Anything less is breaking faith with the thousands of murdered Chileans whose only crime was to exercise the rights of their constitution to belong to a political party and trade union of their choice.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, when he put his question on November 18, 1976, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) also had a supplementary for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), asking whether the latter intended to bring forward a legislation to control the export of capital from Canada. The answer was that:
-such legislation in effect would impose exchange control and would not be in the best interest of the Canadian economy.
And the Minister of Finance went on to say:
*-I have no such proposal to put forward.
The question was put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and dealt with loans to Chile by Canadian banks.

It is not the policy of the government to interfere in transactions by Canadian firms or individuals abroad except in compliance with U.N. Security Council decisions. In the instance of the Canadian banks' loan to Chile, I am informed this was a rescheduling of existing debts in which banks from both Canada and the United States participated. The purpose of the loan was to facilitate the eventual repayment of Chilean debts. This was a private loan and there was no basis for Canadian government involvement.
As for our position on human rights violations, the government has made its concern very plain in a variety of international forums and we plan the continue to speak out on these matters.
The minister added, and I quote:
-the banks are already aware of the Canadian government's position with regard to Chile. In so far as exerting an influence, however, this is a private banking transaction and I see no reason why we as a government should interfere in any way.


TRANSPORT-COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO PROBLEMS IN NEWFOUNDLAND-TERMS OF REFERENCE AND DATE OF COMMENCEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) what action he was taking in connection with a royal commission to investigate modes of transportation into, from, and across Newfoundland, he replied that I could expect an answer on the appointment perhaps within one week. This royal commission was suggested on December 1, 1976, by Mr. Bandeen of the CNR.
March 24, 1977

This suggestion was accepted by the Newfoundland government and the railway union, so long as, first, CN maintained the present level of services and employment while the investigation was under way, and second, so long as federal obligations with respect to transportation matters generally, such as further assistance for repairs and extensions of the trans-Canada highway, DREE roads and the like were continued.
The minister said he was going to appoint this commission. Mr. Bandeen said that it should not take it longer than six months to do its work. The minister said it should report this year's, 1977. Well, 112 days later the royal commission is still not appointed. Why the delay, Mr. Speaker? The minister does not delay when he goes travelling; he goes pretty quickly. Why did he delay 112 days in appointing the royal commission which is urgently needed.
I know that Dr. Arthur Sullivan of Memorial University, St. John's, is supposed to be the chairman. This has been widely known for between four and six weeks. I know that Mr. Esau Thomas of Placentia, the railway union leader, is to be one of the members. I know those hon. gentlemen are looking for a third member to represent the user or business community. Surely we do not have to wait 112 days to find members of a royal commission on such an important matter as this. Surely other Newfoundlanders must be willing to serve, although perhaps an appointment to a Liberal royal commission now is not too desirable.
Since this suggestion was made by Dr. Bandeen and accepted, the Minister of Transport has abandoned the user-pay concept. He has beaten a hasty retreat from the user-pay; of course he was headed off in that direction by his colleagues who informed him that he would be grounded unless he abandoned the user-pay concept.
There are important transportation problems in Newfoundland which must be solved. Just last summer the minister snatched the buses from the control of the board of commissioners of public utilities of Newfoundland, and put them under the Canadian Transport Commission. We learned a few days ago why he did that when the Canadian Transport Commission brought down a decision allowing the CN buses to charge another 8 per cent increase in Newfoundland, in addition to the 30 per cent increase they had taken in June, in defiance of the public utilities commission of Newfoundland.
The Canadian Transport Commission, in my opinion, should have a sign over its door reading, "Abandon hope all ye who oppose rate increases and appear here." The hearing is only a formality. The Canadian Transport Commission has neither the time nor the interest to be concerned about bus transportation and the general transport situation in Newfoundland. That should be regulated at the local level. The hearing before the CTC was unsatisfactory and perfunctory. Adjournments were not allowed to interested parties. The rates have increased 8 per cent, and we hear promises that there will be further applications for more increases.
We have many problems. The trans-Canada highway on which most of our freight now moves into and out of Newfoundland is deteriorating before our very eyes. The minister
Adjournment Debate
of highways of Newfoundland says that he hopes the government of Canada is going to provide financial assistance to improve and upgrade that highway. I hope he is not being over-optimistic. I see no sign of his hopes being fulfilled, although there may be some chance if an election is to take place in the next six months or one year. That problem is very serious.
What is to happen with regard to the losses of the CN in Newfoundland? I say the main problem is that the Government of Canada is not accepting its financial obligations. I do not blame the CN. It is losing S23 million a year. If that railway service must operate at a loss, the Government of Canada is under the constitutional and legal obligation to meet that loss. If the CN drydock, for which the government has an obligation, operates at a loss, I say that the government is under an obligation to overcome that situation. The Government of Canada should help it meet its losses and expand its facilities. I hope to go into greater detail on this topic in another debate. That is another transportation associated problem in Newfoundland.
This royal commission will have to look at the shipping service in Newfoundland. I just received notification that the Clarke Transportation Service, which operates a shipping service from Montreal to St. John's and Corner Brook, and is subsidized by the Government of Canada, recently increased its rates for pool car shipments by 10 per cent, its highest increase for any Canadian service, from Montreal to Newfoundland. Has the Canadian government agreed to this increase? If the Canadian government subsidizes the service, it must surely have the right to say what increases are going to occur.
There are many, many problems of transportation service in Newfoundland that require action, not further study. However, if there is to be further study, every day counts before the chaos in the transportation system in Newfoundland causes complete collapse.
I received a letter from a railway employee a few days ago. There are some 3,500 people who still work for CN in Newfoundland. These people are very concerned. They see the service deteriorating before their eyes. This gentleman told me that in Clarenville alone there are five diesel locomotive engines lying idle, and that train service to Bonavista is down to one a week. The railway will not accept freight unless it is in pool car loads. Any freight that will not fill a pool car is sent by its truck service. CN has its own truck service. It competes with its own rail service by using its own trucks. The service is losing money. It is mostly subsidized.
I call on the minister to meet his obligations when he is in Newfoundland next week, appoint this royal commission, get on with this job, get this report, and take some action to help Newfoundland in its transportation needs.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member directed a question to the minister on March 22. I quote the minister's reply at that time. He said:
4330

March 24, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing these questions with the government of Newfoundland and others. We are now nearly at the stage of having the matter in final form and I would expect an announcement within perhaps one week.
Discussions have been ongoing between Transport Canada and the government of Newfoundland concerning a commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of transportation for Newfoundland, and have resulted in agreement that such a commission is appropriate.
It is intended that a commission would be guided in its endeavours by terms of reference sufficiently broad in scope that transportation related questions can be examined with a perspective capable of recognizing social and economic objectives of the two governments. A commission would be asked to articulate clearly the real wishes and needs of Newfoundland, based on contributions received from all interested parties through the public hearing process. It will carefully weigh all factors in arriving at a clear statement of priorities and plans for improving the transportation system.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker I would like to say the minister hopes to be in a position within the next week to make a detailed announcement on the commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

Friday, March 25, 1977