1977-03-02

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas figures released today by the Department of Finance indicate that Canada's foreign reserves have fallen by $573 million since the end of last year, and whereas those same figures indicate that our U.S. dollar reserves have declined by $565 million while the Canadian dollar has fallen to a 95-cent range, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House ask the government to make a reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that a full review of Canada's activities with respect to its international reserves and the falling dollar may be made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 seek leave to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the new discovery by the Atomic Energy Control Board that over 260 homes in Elliot Lake are contaminated by radon gas, of which 14 need corrective action to prevent a health hazard to their inhabitants, and in view of the delays by AECB in commencing clean-up operations because of lack of funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the cabinet authorize the expenditure of sufficient funds to clean up the radiation hazard now faced by hundreds of Elliot Lake residents.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FURTHER NATIONAL UNITY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion on an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the recent statements by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-who said that the separation of Quebec would have disastrous effects for the province-are not likely to promote a logical discussion on the advantage Quebec can draw from its presence in Confederation, appealing as they do to feelings like fear and panic, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to stop trying to scare Canadians and instead administer the country in such a way that the people of Quebec have the impression that it is really worth being part of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions 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.


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


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very important economic matter.

March 2, 1977
Oral Questions
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) received lately a telegram from the Canadian Association of Footwear Manufacturers in which they say, among other things, that 55 per cent of the Canadian footwear market was being supplied through imports, thus putting on unemployment insurance more than 25,000 workers from one of the oldest Canadian industries.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs examine this situation as soon as possible in order to amend the Textile and Clothing Board Act so that the footwear industry can be also covered by the board to have quotas imposed upon footwear imports.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister could confirm that he has intervened or intends to intervene with the Anti-Inflation Board to request that the A1B reconsider a roll-back recommendation involving Montreal flour mills; and if he has or intends to, would he explain the specific reasons for this intervention?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with the CSN a week or so ago in Montreal. At that time they had drafted a proposal to go to the cabinet for reconsideration, but on reflection they drafted grounds on which they were basing an appeal to the AIB for reconsideration. They asked if I would take those grounds to the AntiInflation Board and have the board review them. This I did this morning.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it the policy of the Minister of Labour, in his capacity as Minister of Labour, to intervene on behalf of aggrieved unions in cases other than this particular one; and if not, will he indicate to the House how he intends to distinguish the precedent he has set this morning from a pattern of intervention in the activities of the AIB?
[Mr. Rondeau.1


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think an accurate description of the role I played this morning was one of mediation in a labour dispute and people not working. I would advise the Leader of the Official Opposition that not only have employers come to me in my capacity as minister, but unions asking if I would make certain things clear to the AIB and in an unofficial way I have been a channel of communication to the AIB over a protracted period of time. I see nothing inconsistent in that role and the role of Minister of Labour.


Charles Joseph Clark: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister see nothing inconsistent in his role as an intervenor and his role as a member of the final appeal authority to which decisions of the AIB have to be appealed? That clearly is a case of conflict of interest, and we want to know whether the minister intends to continue to be both advocate and judge in cases relating to anti-inflation measures.


John Carr Munro: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, depending on the type of interpretation the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to put on the word "intervenor". I see nothing-and 1 reiterate-inconsistent with my putting certain views of parties who feel they want their position clarified before the board, and letting the board make their decision.


INTERVENTION OF MINISTERS IN DECISIONS OF AIB
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Is it the policy of the government that a minister of the Crown who sits as a member of a body which is the final appeal authority from decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board should be acting as an intervenor in the direct way in which the Minister of Labour acted this morning; and does the Prime Minister, if he approves this behaviour by his minister, intend to request that ministers who act in that way will absent themselves from decisions by the cabinet when cabinet acts as the final appeal authority?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the leader of the opposition. He is raising a really difficult question. I think the relevant words in the answer of the Minister of Labour are that he did not act as an advocate; he acted as one who was conveying information and representation. In this sense I have had to make the same decision myself, Mr. Speaker, and I reached the same conclusion as the Minister of Labour. I have been asked by many people, members of parliament, members of the private sector and, indeed, I have been asked by provincial premiers; incidentally, not of my party-


An hon. Member:: There are not many left.


An hon. Member:: You are not kidding.


An hon. Member:: How many are left-one?
March 2, 1977


Mr. Epp:: Nova Scotia is your western frontier.


Mr. Paproski:: It is Wednesday, March 2, and it is Ottawa.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is really difficult to follow a train of thought, Mr. Speaker, but I think they get the drift.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has told us that he has been asked to intervene. Has he intervened?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in what cases has the Prime Minister intervened? What were the special circumstances that allowed him to intervene in a case before a tribunal regarding which he is the presiding officer of the appeal board of that tribunal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question by confessing that I had made the same assessment of the situation as the Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: You made the same mistake.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Members of the House are free to judge that it is a mistake.


An hon. Member:: We did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, I was asked to convey information, not to advocate or plead or even enjoin in any way, but to convey feelings to the AIB and I thought it was within my duty as a member of parliament to do that, particularly when requested by provincial premiers, Mr. Speaker.


FUTURE POSITION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING AIB DECISIONS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and arises from his answer to the House this afternoon in response to the question of the leader of the opposition. Can we now determine, since the cabinet is the final court of appeal for AIB decisions, that the cabinet gives full approval to any minister who intervenes with the AIB on anyone's behalf, be it management, labour or any other part of the economy? Since the Minister of Labour has set a precedent in this regard, will the cabinet, being the last court of appeal, support such interventions in future no matter where they originate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answering the previous question and this one I am trying too be as candid as possible. I realize that by invoking my own practices perhaps I am sticking my neck out.


Mr. Alexander:: Right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I don't mind, because I know you guys don't have a very sharp axe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We shall see. We will use a club.


An hon. Member:: We could use the other end.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Sure. You know where to put it, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What happened in caucus this morning?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you straighten your tie, too?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, I cannot speak for the Minister of Labour. This is the first I have heard of this particular incident. I do not know in what way he talked to the AIB. But I do know that when people asked me to make that kind of representation, I made it very clear that they were asking me to talk to a quasi-judicial tribunal and I would not want to do it in any way that influenced their judgment. Also, I have enough confidence in Mr. Pepin and enough experience with his ability not to be swayed by any intervention, on the basis of the experiences I am referring to, to know that I was perhaps rendering a service to the people who wanted me to make a point, sometimes for political reasons, sometimes for reasons of substance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore I did transfer these demands which were made of me to Mr. Pepin.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS COST-SHARING IN MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FOR MUNICIPALITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that the Prime Minister made it clear that the Liberals distinguish always between their politics and their substance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We can see right through you, too.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the claque would be quiet for a minute, perhaps I could ask my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that shortly before the election of 1974 the Prime Minister promised the city of Toronto that if the Liberal party were re-elected it would guarantee to the municipalities some $290 million to be spent on mass transportation under specifically allocated cost-sharing programs, and in view of the statement the Minister of Finance recently made in the House, that "the government had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it could not extend financial assistance to municipalities in this field," I ask the Prime Minister if the

March 2, 1977
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance stated government policy. If so, does the Prime Minister not believe that this 100 per cent shift in government policy contributes substantially to the feeling of cynicism about politics in this country, regardless of the substance involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party may not be aware that I answered this particular question about a week ago when 1 indicated that the matter was still before cabinet.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister is referring to his comment as reported on page 3423 of Hansard for February 25. He said:
-the matter of metropolitan urban transportation is before cabinet now.
My question has to do with the specific commitment made in 1974 in which many details were outlined as to how the federal government was to cost-share this important municipal need. I understood, as did several others, that the Minister of Finance said that the government had categorically changed its mind about that specific commitment. Is this the case, or has the government left that specific commitment open for review?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The latter, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in that answer has clearly repudiated what the Minister of Finance said in the House. Is the government now reconsidering its 1974 election promise? Will they soon make abundantly clear to the municipalities and the provinces what their intentions are so that they can get on with the very serious and costly job of urban transit planning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point of my answer last week, that the government was not reconsidering it but that it was considering it.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell us if he is aware of the statement of his Quebec counterpart to the effect that the latter intends to challenge the constitutionality of Criminal Code section 2 defining the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada? If so, can he tell us what he intends to do to avoid a distressing constitutional debate on the matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I caught correctly that it was my provincial

counterpart in Quebec. If so, I am not aware of any such statement. There is a case in Alberta in which that very same issue has been raised.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a supplementary to the minister and I thank him for his answer to my first question.
Can he tell the House whether he is willing to initiate a meeting with the Quebec minister of justice to discuss the matter with a view to determining, as the minister said, whether in fact he is the one who made that statement?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to meet with my counterpart from Quebec if he made such a statement. The view of most of the attorneys general, and we have discussed this on many occasions, is that there is, or should be, no prosecutorial role for the Attorney General of Canada. That is a position I do not accept.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the many requests of the public accounts committee for governmental help in tracing agency payments made by AECL and Italimpianti, AECL's partner in Argentina, and the undertakings by the minister's colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that everything possible was being done, why has no request been conveyed to the government of Italy for assistance when, according to this week's Financial Post, Dr. Nicola Marvelli, the public prosecutor of Genoa, Italy, has completed a comprehensive investigation into Italimpianti's payment in anticipation of a request from Canada but that so far no request has been forthcoming from Canada. Why has no such request for governmental assistance been conveyed by the minister, his department or his government to the government of Italy?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the hon. member before, and I repeat now, that we will make those requests on the basis of a request from the hon. member, the chairman of the committee. I have a letter, which I believe is dated February 28, in the case of the Italian request. In any event, it was processed yesterday. All previous requests from the hon. member are in work. Whether we have had any replies or not,
I am not sure at the moment. I will be glad to make inquiries. The question really is whether we should proceed on our own initiative. I have already explained that to the chairman of the committee. I would think the best procedure to follow is for
March 2, 1977

him, through the committee, to make representations. 1 undertake, as we have done up until now, to put these forward as quickly as possible.


REQUEST COMMITTEE BE APPRISED OF DETAILS OF AGENCY PAYMENTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Lucien Secouri, the head of Italimpianti-for our purposes, anyway-has spoken to a Canadian journalist in Italy and to others. He has stated that some of the agency payments "found their way back to Argentina". Why was not this information obtained either by the minister or by AECL and conveyed to the committee long before this? Why do we have to rely on the news media to give out this information?


Hon. Alastalr Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am grateful to the hon. member for the information he has conveyed to me and I will make a point of raising this matter with Mr. Secouri. As the hon. member knows, a letter went to Mr. Secouri asking for information.


REQUEST FOR RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION BY SWITZERLAND INTO AECL AGENCY PAYMENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: My
supplementary is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he or his department aware that the regional public prosecutor in Lugano, Switzerland, has opened an official investigation into AECL's $2.4 million payment to Intercontinental General Trading and the role of Italimpianti's Swiss bankers? Has the minister, on behalf of the Canadian government, made a request to the government of Switzerland for the results of that investigation and, if not, will he undertake to do so immediately?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The first answer is yes, I am aware of it. Indeed, 1 acknowledge that it is thanks to the information provided to me by the chairman of the public accounts committee, and since that information was contained in his letter to me I have transmitted that letter in total to the Swiss authorities. Whatever information the Swiss authorities have and are prepared to provide, they will presumably make available. But we did put in all of the detail which was in fact in the letter I received from the chairman of the public accounts committee.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: A supplementary arising out of the same news report. I should like to ask whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has now decided to hold an inquiry to determine why Atomic Energy of Canada paid its half of the $5 million fee without having first obtained evidence that Italimpianti had paid its $2.5 million, in spite of the fact that the president, Lome Gray, had advised that his board would not approve payment without such evidence?
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am doubtful whether a question of that kind is in order at this point, given the fact that the public accounts committee is dealing specifically with this subject. The hon. member sits on that committee and I am surprised he has not put that question to the officers of the corporation concerned.


Walter David Baker: It has been put. Now we are asking the minister.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the program of retesting for radium contamination at Elliot Lake showing, I believe, about 214 contaminated homes compared to about 60 last year. Could the minister tell the House when he will be in a position to make a report on the most recent findings by way of a statement on motions or the tabling of a report dealing with this retesting program by AECB?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the hon. member's question to provide an answer. I would like to do so right now, but I do not have all the facts before me at the present time. I can assure him there has not been any increase in the number of houses suspected of being radioactive or requiring remedial action. I can assure him also that the clean-up is proceeding. Proposals are being sought right now from engineers for purposes of project management, and I would expect an appointment to be made very shortly. As to the precise number of houses affected, my information is that there has been no increase. If the hon. member has any further questions he wishes to put to me, I would be pleased to try to answer them.


William Herbert Jarvis: The minister is likely aware that the United Steelworkers union local in Elliot Lake has called for a public inquiry or public hearings with respect to this situation. Will the minister, on the basis of information he has received to date, tell us if he is seriously considering that request?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, not as far as a full-blown formal inquiry is concerned. But if the hon. member has any information he believes I should have, and which I have not seen, I hope he will put it forward. I am most anxious to provide as much information as possible to the community, to the steelworkers, the union workers and the people of Elliot Lake with respect to the situation and (he clean-up. the Atomic Energy Control Board which has been managing the task force clean-up, which involves co-operation on the part of most federal government departments, the Atomic Energy Control Board and provincial government departments, has
3570

March 2, 1977
Oral Questions
opened an office in Winnipeg. I expect that particular activity to continue. If there is any further information that we can provide, I will be very pleased to consider it.


RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF ONTARIO- REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROBLEMS BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Using the guidelines which have produced these results in Elliot Lake, would the minister review the problems in Deloro where a man recently died, in Port Hope where we have had some other problems, and in Bancroft where uranium is now being produced in quantity?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to review the situation. Again, if the hon. member has any new information that I am not in possession of or which the Atomic Energy Control Board is not in possession of, I would ask him to send it. Quite clearly, this is the kind of situation which is under continuing review. The Atomic Energy Control Board has been very much involved in the clean-up at Deloro. They are very much aware of the situation in Bancroft. They have been involved in the management of the clean-up of the Port Hope radium refining wastes. If there are any new developments which the hon. member knows about which have not been made public, I would ask him to provide the information.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the radon gas radiation in Elliot Lake, a week or so ago the Atomic Energy Control Board stated publicly that it did not have enough funds to carry out a thorough clean-up operation for all the homes affected. I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that adequate funds will be forthcoming for AECB and, if so, when?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question almost precisely the same as this last week. I indicated that the federal government would be prepared to put up its share, but because of the nature of the radioactivity, of the natural outcropping, we would be looking to the province of Ontario or its agencies to pick up its share.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the health of residents is affected here, I think it is crucial that they know when funds will be forthcoming for the clean-up, and that is my question. Can the minister assure us that the funds will be forthcoming immediately, rather than prolonging the delay that has already been experienced?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think the question is whether the funds will be forthcoming, that being the reason for any delay. The most important thing-I have always made this clear-is that the clean-up will continue, and continue regardless of who pays.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN CANADA
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister agree that, given all these new cases which have been reported, and all the widespread confusion about the operation of atomic energy in this country, the time is now ripe for him to accept the recommendation of the leader of the opposition for a public inquiry into the use of nuclear energy in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the leader of the opposition further to the questions that he put to me last week, and he detailed a number of points. I have since replied to him. I believe there may be a role in the form of a parliamentary committee hearing. 1 suggested to him that the appropriate place to put these questions would be to the standing committee on natural resources which has already received a reference from this House dealing with the whole question of an energy strategy for Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. The minister advised the House some time ago that he would review the question of rental increases for permanent married quarters. Would the minister state the results of these considerations, and is he in a position to announce what rental policies will apply to members of the armed services; and if no decision has been reached, would he give every consideration to those who serve Canada so ably?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give a final report at this time. This is a matter that is under personal attention. We are trying to work out an arrangement, which is in conformity with the present restraints program that we are asking people to observe, which will be satisfactory and acceptable to all members of the armed forces and a fair arrangement altogether. This is a matter that is getting my urgent attention, but it is a question of working out satisfactory rentals which reflect the realities of the day and the needs of the services.


POLYSAR CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that testimony in the public accounts committee by Mr. Justice
March 2, 1977

Aylesworth and Polysar president Ian Rusk supported the allegations made by the then auditor general, Maxwell Henderson, in a 1973 letter to the Prime Minister, and revealed that kickbacks in the form of cash or tax rebates went to a Canadian company based in western Canada, but Polysar officials did not give its name, will the government, as a major stockholder in Polysar, through its control of CDC, instruct Polysar to reveal the full details, including the name of this company, to enable the committee to fulfil its responsibility to parliament by calling relevant witnesses to give that evidence?


An hon. Member:: Say yes, you will.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I will when I know what the question is. I am a little puzzled. The House is asking me to comment on matters that are now before a committee of this House, before that committee has reported to the House. I have not read the record and I obviously have not assisted on the committee. I am told that the committee or some witness was rather critical of Mr. Henderson for his conduct in this whole matter, but I am in no position to judge until I have read the report of the committee, and therefore I will not comment on the proceedings before the committee.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Minister of National Revenue. As Mr. Justice Aylesworth stated that the size of the rebates went far beyond what could be considered a volume rebate which could have been used to evade taxes and foreign exchange regulations, will the Minister of National Revenue ascertain whether or not the Canadian government has been defrauded?


Hon.   Monique@: I will certainly make sure of that, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate to the House whether he will later on this afternoon call a press conference for the purpose of advising the government's position with respect to the eradication or wiping out of the $840 million-odd debt on the St. Lawrence Seaway system and in regard to the doubling of the existing tolls for the 1978 shipping season? If so, I wonder whether he would indicate why he feels that the House of Commons, on motions, would not have been a good place to make such an announcement?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making an announcement later today about the intentions of the government with regard to the existing debt and accrued interest in relation to the Seaway, and also describing the nature of the discussions that we are having with the
Oral Questions
United States in connection with Seaway tolls. As for the question about where to make the announcement, there are so many matters involving transportation which are happening all the time in such an action-filled area that I would be making statements every hour of the day.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether I might direct a supplementary question to the minister. I see he is smiling. When one wipes out $1 billion and has something to do with the area that suffers as a result, one wants clearly to understand the situation. Is it the position of this government that the debt will be completely removed and that there will be a provision to accommodate the debt, which is about $642 million, plus $200 million interest on the debt; or is this a position from which we will enter into further bilateral discussions with the United States respecting the future tolls situations. In other words, are we acting unilaterally in this matter, is it a firm position, or is it a position from which we will go forward and have further discussions with the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as far as the debt is concerned, there are two parts to the debt, the accrued interest which it is not intended to treat as a current liability and in due course to remove, and the balance of the debt, the initial construction cost, which it is intended to convert into equity. In that sense, we would wipe it out, but that is hardly a wiping out in the literal sense. It is our objective to have a Seaway tolls structure which covers operating and maintenance costs and, in addition, provides at the present time a very small extra amount such as, for instance, a 1 per cent return on the equity.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your accommodation, because this is a matter involving $1 billion. I wonder if the minister would undertake to do one of two things, either to have some reference of this matter, beyond the scope of the estimates now before the standing committee, to the standing committee or, short of that, table in the House the documents which would give us a better understanding of the internal pressures that this will have on the direction of the movement of grain, the degree to which it will force grains through the west coast ports which will reach Vancouver when we are not physically geared for it-in short, the studies which have led to the obvious and firm position the government has taken on this matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Simultaneous with the timing of the press conference, which is called for 3.30 this afternoon, I have given instructions to have delivered to all members of the House of Commons information on the nature of the steps being proposed, discussions which are under way, and also some background information such as the hon. member requests in relation to the impact of toll changes upon goods moving through the Seaway, and relativities between tolls as they are proposed and as they have been over the last 20 years.
sooio-ao'/i

March 2, 1977
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SHORTAGE OF VETERINARIANS-GOVERNMENT STEPS TO ALLEVIATE-NEW VETERINARIAN COLLEGE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the latest information indicates that the health of animals branch of Agriculture Canada is still short some 144 veterinarians, have the minister and his department undertaken any active program to recruit veterinarians to fill these vacancies, because although the reputation of the department is impeccable, the morale on the whole could stand improvement and one concrete way to improve it would be to relieve the work load?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it may sound insignificant, but I know we hired an extra one yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We are trying to do our very best to find qualified veterinarians to fill the vacancies at present, and I am doing everything, even to going to Treasury Board for more money to fulfil this most important obligation we have to that part of society.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Can the minister tell us whether a decision has now been made to build the new veterinary college and, if so, can the minister tell us where the college will be built?


Eugene Whelan: The independent committee has recommended that the college be built in Charlottetown, but that was with the understanding that the four provincial premiers in the east would agree. If I remember the minutes correctly, the premier of Nova Scotia thinks it should be located there, so they do not have full agreement.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask the minister if his policy is now an over-all policy, and will he extend the same largesse of government funds and forgiveness to other facilities owned by the Department of Transport directly or indirectly which have had trouble to make ends meet on a revenue basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will simply take note of the description of the policy involved here and the hon. member's word "largesse", and frame it and send it to some of his colleagues from other parts of the country but sitting on the same side of the House with him.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-CON VERSION OF PART OF DEBT INTO EQUITY-EFFECT ON CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement by the Minister of Transport that part of this debt was being cancelled by simply being converted into equity, I should like to ask the minister whether the ownership by the government of Canada in this obvious institution is thereby going to be increased, or is this a mere kind of accounting sophistry for which one could go to jail if it were not the government doing it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, rather than sophistry, it faces up to the real issue which his predecessor, as leader of the Conservative party, ignored completely and was a legal obligation to deal squarely and according to the law with the debt and equity structure or debt and infrastructure of the Seaway. It is quite plainly depicting the picture accurately. It is, in our view, absolutely ridiculous to carry an item as a debt, drawing interest, and then be in no position to claim or pay or even seek payment of that interest. Instead, therefore, we will very plainly and openly say that instead of treating that as a debt, it will be treated as equity. We will, therefore, measure what it is in terms of a return on investment, we will set a target, and that we will then receive. We are targeting, at this point, a 1 per cent return on that equity. I would like the hon. member and other hon. members opposite to get together with the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on the one hand, and the hon. member for Crowfoot on the other hand, to tell me whether 1 per cent is too high or too low.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the Minister of Transport simply whether he will openly say, as he seemed to be doing lately, that he was cancelling the debt, or whether he is going to do what he seemed to be doing previously, that is, trying to hide behind the operation through some kind of manipulative conversion into equity when the government of Canada now owns the whole thing anyway?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would say that I was trying to be very careful and accurate with the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East in that I said that if he wanted to call that action a cancelling of a debt, he could do so. However, it was being carried as equity on the books and would return a certain amount on that equity, which we are saying now is 1 per cent. As I said, if we said more than that I know that many hon. members opposite, particularly from the west and central parts of the country, would say that that would be unfair and an unnecessary imposition on the people in that region. It is, in fact, a modest return of course, but it is also necessary to recognize that when in transportation policies we are trying to move from the present position to an ideal one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 2, 1977


Otto Emil Lang: -the transformation, the impact, the resulting correction in the conduct of a lot of people is so great, because of the failure of many in the past to face up strongly to the political issues involved, that it will take many years and we will have to proceed slowly, rather than attempting to make the transformation to the ideal forthwith.


AIR PASSENGER SERVICE IN ATLANTIC AREA-REQUEST FOR EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the air passenger service in Atlantic Canada. Following the minister's meeting with the council of maritime premiers, can the minister inform the House what specific plans there are for early implementation of the air passenger service for the citizens of Atlantic Canada?


An hon. Member:: An excellent question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of air travel did arise only briefly in the discussions which I had with the Atlantic premiers. The discussion concentrated on a couple of fairly urgent railway and highway matters. Therefore, no definite decision was taken about further action in relation to air services.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-GOVERN MENT TREATMENT OF DEBT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. I should like to direct the first one to the Minister of Transport. I appreciate the fact that he makes many announcements and that he cannot make statements in the House on every one of them. In view of the fact that the announcement he made yesterday and the one the made today involve well in excess of $1 billion of public funding as well as decisions on user charges, does he not consider it important and serious enough to warrant making a statement on motions in parliament and presenting the case to parliament before he does it at a press conference?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure whether that question is hypothetical or philosophical, but it would take a long time to answer.


STATEMENT OF POLICY MADE BY MINISTER OUTSIDE HOUSE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Transport made a major announcement of government action in Vancouver yesterday regarding the Via Rail Passenger Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister's excuse was that no statement on motions could be made because he was in Vancouver.
Oral Questions
Today he is in Ottawa. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Transport to make a statement on motions in this House on a matter involving over $800 million of St. Lawrence Seaway debt, and the doubling of the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, which is of sufficient importance for the minister to make a statement in the House, and to cease his contemptuous treatment of parliament and the arrogant manner in which he treats this chamber? He should make his announcement in the proper place and at the proper time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, like other ministers in the House, the Minister of Transport has about an hour every day to answer questions, and I think that with a little bit of ingenuity the hon. member could get the information he wants, but-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to inform the Prime Minister that we have yet to get a word from the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
My question deals with the recent crash of a DC-3 at Sugluk in northern Quebec. Can he tell us whether he has ordered an inquiry into that accident which cost four lives, and can he also tell the House whether prior to it, he had received complaints about the shortage of equipment necessary to ensure proper operations at the Sugluk airport, and whether he intends to hold an inquiry, at the same time, on all the other airports in northern Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not yet had a report on the circumstances or any possible complaints in connection with this matter. 1 can tell the hon. member, however, that our airport construction program is going forward in the area concerned. During the course of last summer we purchased the necessary equipment for airport construction throughout the northern Quebec region. Meetings were held in the region about the priorities and airport needs of Sugluk. They were put in the second category, and that will be the second airport of eleven being constructed under this new construction program.

March 2, 1977
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


PRIME MINISTER S DISCUSSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS WITH PRESIDENT CARTER
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is with respect to the meetings he had last week with President Carter. I believe that during the course of conversations President Carter raised the matter of human rights with the Prime Minister, and specifically the question of his letter to a Soviet dissident, and he looked forward to the Prime Minister's response. Did the Prime Minister indicate to President Carter his agreement with the initiative of the President and his support for this, or did he offer any indication of what his action, as the head of the Canadian government, affecting human rights might be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question of human rights was discussed at some length between us, and when the President discussed his approach to this problem I congratulated him and indicated I was somewhat envious of his ability to get results by speaking directly. I told him that in the past we had used something called a more diplomatic approach and that we had some success with that approach, but that perhaps the more direct approach would be more successful and I was anxious to compare results with him. We agreed that before the Belgrade conference reviewing the Helsinki conference we would, through our officials, indirectly attempt to assess which is the more effective approach, the direct approach or the diplomatic representation approach.
However, I repeat that I think it is more satisfactory, from the point of view of the particular country which has a grievance, to say so out loud and very clearly. It is much more rewarding in terms of self-satisfaction. But the question of whether it produces better results is one which we will attempt to assess together.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With respect to President Carter's comments later in the week stating that he was not limiting his concern about human rights only to the Soviet Union and other communist countries with respect to the action followed by Secretary Vance to announce the Carter administration decision to cut foreign aid commitments to Argentina, Uruguay and Ethiopia, a precedent-setting administrative decision, is the Prime Minister aware of this move by the American administration, perhaps from his talks with President Carter, and is consideration being given to similar Canadian initiatives to reduce our economic support for countries which consistently and in a gross way violate human rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do remember this question being commented on by the previous secretary of state for external affairs. 1 think it is fair to say that until now we have not made it a condition of our assistance to starving people in the third world that their governments be above reproach.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is Argentina?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That has been our general approach. 1 am interested in what the hon. member says about the new approach of Secretary Vance and I will be looking forward to seeing how many non-democratic countries they will be aiding through their aid program, if indeed the hon. member has the message right.


MANPOWER
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration arising out of an exchange on Monday of this week. I asked him a two part question and he neglected to respond to one part. I would like again to ask the minister if he can assure us that tobacco farmers will be given the same access to offshore labour as farmers of other crops.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our agreement with the province of Ontario, I wrote to the provincial minister of labour stating our suggestions and recommendations about the conduct of the offshore labour situation this year, and until I receive an answer from her I would prefer not to comment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: What is surprising about that?
March 2, 1977


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: If anything, 1 was impressed by the utilization Soviet processors made of their fish, contrary to some of our own wasteful practices.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it has to do with the Badgley Report on abortion. Inasmuch as the Badgley report emphasized that the management and surveillance of therapeutic abortion procedures in hospitals has been ineffective and has lacked direction, what instructions has the minister given the provinces with regard to monitoring the work of abortion committees to ensure that there is an even application of the law which specifies that abortions are permitted for health reasons and not for economic and social reasons, and would he table in the House the instructions he has given to the provinces.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 trust that the hon. member appreciates that I am not in a position to instruct the provinces. That is a matter for provincial ministers of health. I made it clear the day that the Badgley committee report was published that following an opportunity by provincial governments and provincial ministers of health to study the report, my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I, either directly or through our officials, would be meeting with provincial health officials.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, the minister has made several statements outside the House that he has no intention of taking the subject of abortion outside the Criminal Code. Would the minister make that statement inside the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read Hansard he would see my previous answers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) on a question of privilege.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a short question of privilege about the growing tendency of the ministry either to evade or not give factual answers to questions put on the order paper, and I seek your assistance and help. On November 18 1 put two relatively simple questions on the order paper, to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When questions on the order paper are called I will hear the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on that point. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) on a question of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent PRIVILEGE


MR BROADBENT-FAILURE OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO MAKE POLICY STATEMENTS IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and do not do so lightly, and do not do so in this House at all frequently. It pertains to what has become the persistent practice of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to ignore his serious responsibilities to the House of Commons and, therefore, directly to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Members of this House do not object if ministers make statements outside the House infrequently on minor matters of policy, but when a minister of the Crown, twice within a period of 72 hours, deliberately ignores parliament-I will explain why 1 say he deliberately ignores parliament and make that point clear in a second-when he made a major statement in British Columbia, 48 hours ago, on transportation policy concerning passenger services primarily, and this afternoon he is scheduled, not in another province or at a distance but in Ottawa, to have a press conference at which he is going to announce another major policy decision of the government of Canada, then we object. This time it affects another significant part of our transportation system, and in both cases hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money are involved.
In both cases major policy alternatives have presumably been considered by the government and normally would be commented upon by opposition parties on this side of the House. Therefore 1 say that the minister is systematically avoiding his responsibilities to the House-two days ago in Vancouver and today in Ottawa-by making announcements of government policy outside the House.
What can be the reason for this, Mr. Speaker? The only reason is that the minister is trying to manipulate the news media; the only reason is that the minister knows that if he makes a statement on policy outside the House of Commons he is directly accountable to no one and he is not questioned here in the House.
The reply by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a question near the end of the question period, in which it was seriously suggested that the Prime Minister exercise his responsibility by directing the Minister of Transport to make his 3.30 p.m. announcement here in the House instead of across the street was, to put it mildly, deplorable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister said to a member that if he exercised a little ingenuity he might have been able to get the question out that he wanted to ask.
How can a member on this side of the House-or as happens from time to time a backbencher on the other side of the House-ask a serious question about a complex matter when the details have not been presented in the House?

Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow.


John Edward Broadbent: The reply of the Prime Minister was at best disingenuous and, at worst, a contempt of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if you rule that 1 have a prima facie case of privilege I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the failure of the Minister of Transport to make important announcements concerning national transportation policy in the House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
March 2, 1977
spend some time on legislation instead of playing the games that the opposition delight in playing-


An hon. Member:: Who is playing games?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: -then we would have more legislative action and not have to depend on executive action. In fact, the question of the Seaway to which I am referring this afternoon will be before the House in the form of an item in the estimates where, of course, it will be open to the House to discuss it in full.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the rules are clear that there is a good deal of discretion in deciding what statements of a policy nature are to be made in the House and thereby interrupt the regular and very important legislative business of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -to which we do not devote enough attention, and certainly because of the opposition not enough effective attention. It is that discretion which rests with the minister. In this particular case hon. members obviously paid no attention, or remember very little of what was said in this House in terms of policy statements. The announcement of our intention to set up a special corporation for railway passenger services was announced in this House in a policy statement made in January, 1976.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: That statement clearly laid out the two possible routes we would take in attempting to put that corporation in place, and the announcement was made on Monday when I was in Vancouver at a transportation seminar-and therefore I think in a very appropriate place to make the statement about passenger travel. I believe statements in the west and statements in the Atlantic region are important too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) looks at the January statement he will find it contained quite a number of elements on which specific action will be taken. It would not be my intention in regard to the others either to be back here at the time when tenders were called for those trains that we referred to as wanting to purchase, when the tenders are in and offers accepted. These will not be made in the House. They are ongoing matters which happened in that case to be reflected in a policy statement which was made in this House.
As far as the Seaway question is concerned, what I will be announcing today is what the intention of government policy is in relation to these matters. They will come before the House in appropriate ways for legislative action. If this House would


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) used as an excuse for running around the rule changes that were made and agreed to by all parties in this House in regard to statements by ministers. The minister himself said that he made a statement that there were one or two possible alternatives that he had spoken about in January. If the government has made a fundamental choice then it should announce it in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The second matter which he and all ministers should know is the philosophy behind the rule changes which deal with the question of statements by ministers in this House of Commons. What happened? The fact of the matter is that there had been a steadying increase in the tendency of ministers to make important public announcements on changes of policy or what have you outside the House.
After a long period of study the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization decided to make some changes because at least that committee recognized the importance of the House of Commons in terms of public announcements- much more important that the ill-defined and ill-directed discretion of ministers like the Minister of Transport. They provided a procedure whereby a minister would make his important statements in the House. Surely if it is important enough to set up a meeting outside this House at 3.30 this afternoon, and at a meeting the day before yesterday in a distant place, it is equally valid to say that the statement is important enough to be made in this place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The committee provided as well for the attendance of members of this House who are interested in the various subject matters covered by ministerial statements. It is the responsibility of members, on behalf of their constituents and in line with their responsibilities in parliament and as members of committees, to answer the minister, perhaps suggest alternatives, comment, and set forth other positions. It is important that they have the right to question.
March 2, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: And the Prime Minister's suggestion is ridiculous. Why should we have to second guess and do a lot of other similar things about important questions?
I raised this question before with respect to a statement made by the minister outside the House involving a wheat sale to China. I objected and then the minister said this was an ongoing matter. I suppose, on reflection, he was right. But I suggest that he has brought forward this time some highly questionable changes which will affect the entire transport system of this country, which will affect transport by rail and by sea. One cannot say that this question is not fundamental, and it ought not to be regarded in the same way as a wheat sale to China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: 1 suggest that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has brought forward a valid question of privilege and I hope Your Honour will accept it as such. It is an important point, particularly important now when members of the government are prepared to talk about parliament being televised. I suggest that they should talk in parliament before there is television coverage of our proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Otherwise government members, supported by the Prime Minister, would really be riding roughshod over the spirit of the rule changes which were introduced in this House after a great deal of debate. I commend the leader of the NDP for bringing the motion forward. We support it, and hope the Chair will support it as well.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment on what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said with respect to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent), may I say that I would narrow the question down even more, to that of the opportunity of members of parliament to question in a meaningful way the minister, question the policy, and question the full impact of the announcement he is about to make this afternoon.
1 have examined the legislative program for the balance of this week and note that the matter now before the House has no relationship at all to the announcement which is about to be made. Later, when estimates are examined before standing committees, there will be an opportunity indirectly to question Seaway authority officials with respect to their operations for the coming year. The announcement being made is not relevant to his year at all. Rather, it would be more applicable to operations in 1978 and beyond.
I suggest to you, Sir, you who are our senior officer, that our privileges have indeed been called into question, have indeed
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
been impaired when announcements have been outside the House. Such a course deprives those of us with constituency responsibilities and a continuing interest in significant matters about to be raised of the opportunity to question as soon as possible the policy decision.
A policy decision of substance is to be announced this afternoon. It will not have the benefit of opposition comment, at least not for possibly five or six weeks, by which time the matter will have passed from the minds of the general public. We therefore would be remiss in our responsibilities to the public if we did not ask questions, if we did not try to sort out what is intended. In view of all this I suggest that my privileges have been affected seriously, and I hope Your Honour will give serious consideration to the motion presently before the House.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, in a moment, to address myself to what I realize is your problem, namely, what to do with the motion presented by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Before I do that may I underline what already has been said.
It seems to me that when we re-wrote the rules of the House, particularly with respect to the making of statements by ministers, we put this phase of our procedure in a special category. I completely agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that there is a difference from what used to be the case, precisely because we have in our Standing Orders now a provision which permits opposition spokesmen to comment on statements made in the House by ministers. 1 would argue that since this is written into the rule book-and it is an interesting rule in the sense that there is a whole paragraph of explanation and not just a heading-it is implied that this is the place where ministers ought to make important statements.
All of us recognize that governments must make many routine announcements. Most of them are made by way of press releases, and not even by way of formal statements outside the House. But surely it is in keeping with the way we drew the rules that important statements of policy should be made here, in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The place to make such statements is in this House, so that spokesmen for each opposition party may comment thereon, and also so that members may question the minister.
The minister says that this matter is to be covered in an item in the supplementary estimates which will be tabled later today. It is interesting to have that leak as to what is to be in the supplementary estimates. However, the estimate for this item will not have a statement attached to it. It will have a line or paragraph devoted to it, and a sum of money set down, but there will be no explanation which will let us know what it is all about.

March 2, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
I also point out that those supplementary estimates will not be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion for the reference of all supplementary estimates to standing committees has already been supplied to us, although we do not yet have a copy of the supplementary estimates. Therefore the suggestion the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) makes, that there is some sort of opportunity for discussion, is completely wide of the mark.
To suggest, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did, that members can get at this sort of thing by asking questions ignores the fact that we do not yet have the statement before us. In order to ask pertinent and intelligent questions, surely we need to know what the proposal is which the government is to make. I therefore suggest, on all counts, that important announcements such as the one the Minister of Transport made in Vancouver, and such as the one he proposes to make across the street this afternoon, ought to be made here, in the House of Commons.
Now I come to the problem that arises in these circumstances, the problem with which Your Honour must deal. As the First Commoner among us, you have many privileges and a great deal of authority, but one authority Your Honour does not have is that of compelling a minister to make a statement, or of compelling anyone to say anything. If it appears that that is what we are asking you to do, if it were a case of our asking you to rule that the Minister of Transport must rise and make a statement, you would say of course that you do not have that authority. That is why I emphasize the words of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
He does not ask you to rule that the Minister of Transport must get up and say something in the House, today. He asks Your Honour to agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege for our contention that, given the way the Minister of Transport is handling important announcements concerning national transportation policy, the matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In other words, whether the Minister of Transport is insulting parliament and doing all the things we think he is doing is not something on which we ask Your Honour to rule. We are prepared to let the House take that decision on the basis of a study of the matter in committee. I underline the fact that that is what is before the Chair this afternoon. It is not a request or a demand that you force the Minister of Transport to speak, but a request that you recognize the prima facie case that we have for feeling we have been insulted or offended and, therefore, that the action or inaction of the Minister of Transport on the floor of parliament ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I hope, therefore, that you will find that in those terms the question of privilege which my leader raised is a prima facie one and that you will permit the presenting to the House of the motion he has offered to move.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to add my brief comments to those that have been made on this question of privilege. In my view the insulting manner in which we have been treated on two occasions in the last 72 hours is a great deception.
I became a member of this House having served in two very distinct ways, thinking I was doing a service to my country. I thought there was another way. 1 thought I would find here a meaningful forum for the consideration of national matters. I find instead, and this needs to be underlined, that this government and the ministers of this government have decided to treat this House with absolute disdain and contempt. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the members of the government that perhaps this is one of the reasons, a reason about which we all feel very deeply, we have the situation there is today in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to any question. I would also like to see some of these statements of ministers made in the House. However, we should look into the whole problem of the responsibility of this House with regard to utilization of time.
The opposition are the architects of their own demise when they irresponsibly use the time of this House for a filibuster, as did the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) recently. Because of situations like that we are getting no work through the House. The government has the responsibility to get legislation through this House. We must make the best utilization of time. We must therefore look at the proper form and the rules of this House in order that we will have a more responsible use of the time of this House, rather than the lengthy speeches with so little content that we so often have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has raised, by way of a question of privilege, the failure of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to make important announcements concerning national transportation policy in the House of Commons. He has asked that if the Chair finds a case has been established that the question be put to the House as to whether that failure ought to form the substance of a motion of referral of the failure to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
It has been clear, and the hon. member clearly understood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just pointed out, that there is a total absence of authority to be enforced by the Chair, or in the regulations of the House, to compel the minister to make a statement, just as there is a total absence of authority to compel an answer to be given by a minister during question period for the reason that the satisfaction of that kind of compulsory order would be most difficult to define and describe.
However, the question that is before me now is not whether it is preferable that the minister make such a statement or statements in the House, or preferable that parliament be
March 2, 1977

given priority in respect to the making of these statements over press conferences.
The question before me is whether or not, within the definition of questions of privilege, the failure of a minister, either now or at any time, or the action of a minister in choosing to make a statement outside the House instead of inside the House, can ever constitute a question of privilege within the definition as we know it.
There is a tendency to refer to the establishment of a prima facie case of privilege. With respect, I think that that language is slightly misleading. What really is being sought is the action of the Chair in agreeing to withhold the putting of other questions or taking of other business in order to put the question which is moved, or which would be moved, as a priority matter, giving it that special priority because it relates to the privileges, either individually or collectively, of members of this House. Therefore the question for the Chair is: does this question so fundamentally relate to the privileges of the members of the House, within the definition of privilege as we know it, that it ought to enjoy immediate priority and that the Chair ought to put the question forthwith for a decision by the House?
The precedents are directly against that in respect to the actions of ministers in choosing, as they are of course entitled to do at any time. It is not appropriate for the Chair to make any comment on whether that is preferable. The only question is whether the minister has a discretion to choose to make statements outside or inside the House.
Not only is it clear that any minister would enjoy that discretion, in fact the language of the Standing Order says particularly that, when the procedures of the Standing Order are to be taken advantage of, a minister of the Crown may make a statement inside the House. That is the language that is used. His discretion, therefore, is not only, as always, to take whatever action he wants outside the House; the discretion even is one of an option for the minister to use the House for that purpose.
There is no need to repeat the language of the precedents. We did that when the matter has been raised previously. The language of the precedents is very clear. Nothing in the Standing Orders in any way interferes with the minister's discretion. The point, I think, has been fully amplified. It has been well and thoroughly discussed. It does not in any way change the precedent.
I should add one other matter. Although it does not constitute a question of privilege and therefore enjoy priority, that is not to say that the motion cannot be put forward in other ways, this or any other motion criticizing any act of a member.
Sometimes when such motions do not qualify within the four corners of a question of privilege, there is a tendency to believe the House is rejecting them out of hand. That is not the case. There are other ways of bringing motions before the House. A question of privilege gives a motion very special priority and, therefore, is defined within very narrow limits. Within those
Broadcasting of Parliament
narrow limits I must find that the conditions of privilege have not been met in this particular instance.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Before moving to the presentation of reports, I should indicate that two days ago the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) raised a point of order as to whether, during the question period on that day, in using the following language the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had referred to or cited a document in such a way as to be compelled by the precedents to table the document. The answer of the Minister of Finance to the question of the hon. member for Don Valley appears at page 3460 of Hansard and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously to the House and outside the House, we now have under way a process of discussion with the provincial governments and with other major economic decision makers on a possible dale for the termination of the controls. I should say that, more than a possible date, it is a range of dates and an analysis lying behind each of them. The documents or statements referred to over the week end appear to have been taken from some of the working papers that have been under discussion with the provincial governments. As I said, those papers indicated a range of possible dates commencing next October 14 and running into the next year for the possible termination of controls. No decision on this point has been taken by the government as yet. We have not had a full and definitive response from the provincial governments as yet.
The precedents to be referred to, as to whether or not that constitutes a sufficient quoting or citing of a document to demand the tabling of it, are clearly recorded at page 2441 of Hansard for January 27 of this year. Again 1 would refer to the very clear and explicit language used by my predecessor, which is always of great assistance:
In fairness, looking at the matter as objectively as I can, I do not see how it is possible for the Chair to make a ruling at this point that a document which has simply been referred to but has not been directly quoted should be tabled in debate.
That language is quite explicit, and in the circumstances I cannot find that the hon. member for Don Valley has a valid point of order which would compel the tabling of the document.


TV AND RADIO BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
First Report of the Special Committee on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Proceedings of the House and its Committees-Mr. Speaker.
[Stage Direction]
March 2, 1977
Estimates
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if the House would give its consent I would move concurrence in the report to which you have referred, later this day. I understand there has been the usual consultation between House leaders and that there is agreement that there will be no debate with respect to the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent will be sought when motions are called.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It should be read.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has given an indication that he would seek unanimous consent at this time, on motions, to move a motion on concurrence in the committee's report. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (D) for the financial year ending March 31, 1977, was presented by Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 58(15) and 59(1), I move that the Supplementary Estimates (D), 1976-1977, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows-


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been kind enough to supply me with a list of the references to committees of particular estimates. I have had an opportunity to go over them and they are, I think, quite satisfactory. We could dispense with the reading of the list and it could appear as part of the record of the day as though it had been read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree then that the motion will be handled in the usual way and that the text of the motion which has been provided to the parties be printed as though read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editors note: The motion above referred to is as follows:]
That the Supplementary Estimates (D), 1976-1977, tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 15d, 20d and 45d
To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Secretary of State Votes Id, 5d, 15d, 20d, 40d, L62d, L76d. 85d and 95d To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes L17d. L18d and 30d National Defence Vote 5d
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance Votes Id, 14d and 20d
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes Id, lOd, L38d, 55d and 77d National Revenue Votes Id and 5d To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 5d, lOd and I5d To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs National Health and Welfare Votes 25d, 30d and 50d Urban Affairs Votes 15d. 21 d and 30d To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5d, L20d, 25d. 35d, 70d, L8Id and 84d
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Solicitor General Vote 5d
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Labour Vote Id
Manpower and Immigration Votes Id, 5d, 15d and 20d To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Vote 5d
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Privy Council Votes Id and 15d Secretary of State Vote I05d
Supply and Services Votes 5d, L1 Od, LI Id, 20d, 25d and 27d To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works Energy, Mines and Resources Votes Id, 5d, 7d, 8d, LI5d, 35d, L45d and L62d
Public Works Votes lOd, 20d. 40d and 52d To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Economic Expansion Votes lOd, L15d and 3Id To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Post Office Vote Id
Transport Votes lOd, 20d, 25d, 30d, 40d, 52d, 65d, 96d, 97d and LI I6d To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes 5d. 15d. 30d, 35d and 45d


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the refusal of the minister to make a statement in this
March 2, 1977

House on an important matter, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Call in the press gallery!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 499, 748, 1,171, 1,264, 1,333, 1,334, 1,545 and 1,726.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Did the parliamentary secretary announce question No. 1173? 1 wonder if perhaps he can re-read the numbers.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, that might be the easiest way. The following questions will be answered today: 499, 748, 1,173, 1,264, 1,333, 1,334, 1,545 and 1,726.

March 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions

TENDERS FOR RIFLE RANGE/TARGET PRACTICE FACILITIES, DRUMHELLER, ALBERTA


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works call for tenders for the erection of a rifle range and/or target practice facilities at the Drumhcller Penitentiary in Drumhcller, Alberta and, if so (a) what company was the successful bidder (b) what is the cost of constructing and equipping such facilities (c) for what purpose?
2.	Is this the only facility of its kind attached to any penitentiary in Canada and, if not (a) where are the others located (b) what is the purpose, in each case (c) what was the cost of construction, in each case?
3.	Are there plans to include such facilities at any other institution now in operation, or to be erected in the future and, if so, what is the location in each case?
4.	In each case where such a facility now exists, is in the process of construction or is planned, by what degree of security is each institution designated and how many individuals are permitted to make use of each facility?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Yes,
(a) Greene Construction Limited, MacCormack Landscaping Limited; (b) $201,566; (c) The purpose of the facility is to provide training and maintain proficiency in the use of rifles and side arms for employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service.
2. Yes. (a), (b) and (c) Not applicable.
Note: At present, some of the institutions are using range facilities owned by the Department of National Defence, major police forces or rifle range associations.
3.	It is planned to construct similar facilities at the existing and planned institutions or groups of institutions as shown in the following statement.
4.	The designated security of each institution and the number of personnel permitted to make use of each facility exclusive of outside law enforcement agencies is indicated in the following statement.
Region
Quebec
Rifle range Location
Ste. Anne des Plaines. Quebec
Cowansville,
Quebec
			Number of
Institutions to use facility		Security	Staff
		Degree	Use facility
Existing	Planned		
Institution	Institution		
			1330
Archambault Institution		Max.	
Regional Reception Centre,		Max.	
Ste. Anne des Plaines			
Laval Institution		Max.	
	Maximum no. 1	Max.	
Correctional Development		Max.	
Centre, Ville de Laval			
Leclerc Institution		Med.	
	Medium no. 1	Med.	
	Medium no. 2	Med.	
Correctional Staff College		N/A	
Cowansville Institution	Med.
Medium no. 3	Med.
Ontario	Department of
National Defence. Barricfield, Ont.
Kingston Penitentiary Millhaven Institution Collins Bay Institution Joyceville Institution Correctional Staff College
Note: The Canadian Penitentiary Service is going to build a rifle range i: Department of National Defence.
Max.
Max.
Med.
Med.
N/A
Barriefield. Ontario, at its own cost on premises owned by the
Prairie	Prince Albert,
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Penitentiary	Max.	170
Stony Mountain.
Manitoba

Stony Mountain Institution
Med.
March 2, 1977

Order Paper Questions
				Number of
Region	Rifle range	Institutions to use facility	Security	StaffPrairie	Location	Existing Planned Institution Institution	Degree	Use facilityInnisfail,	Alberta	Bowden Institution	Med.	170Drumheller,	Alberta	Drumheller Institution	Med.	170Pacific	Abbotsford,	B.C.	British Columbia Penitentiary	Max.	640Maximum no. 1	Max.	Matsqui Institution	Med.	Mountain Prison	Med.	Correctional Staff College	N/A


Mr. Muir: 1.	What was the date of the official opening of the Visitor Centre at the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Park and who was responsible for organizing the function?
2.	(a) Who made the decision as to who would (i) be invited (ii) take part in the ceremonies (b) what are the names and positions of those who took part in the ceremonies?
3.	Were the Members of Parliament for the constituencies on Cape Breton Island involved in the ceremonies and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Was there a special seating arrangement for Members of Parliament and Senators representing Cape Breton Island in Parliament and, if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) Was the Premier of Nova Scotia accorded a special role in the ceremonies and, if so, for what reason (b) were the provincial leaders of the two other political parties invited and accorded a special role in the ceremonies and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Sunday, August 15, 1976. Parks Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was responsible for organizing this function.
2.	(a) (i) The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; (ii) The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, (b) Rev. W. B. DeCourcey, Parish Priest, Louisbourg; the Hon. G. A. Regan, Q.C., Premier of Nova Scotia; the Hon. Judd Buchanan, P.C., M.P., the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Dr. Peter B. Waite, Nova Scotia member of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada; the Hon. C. L. Gosse, M.D., Lieutenant-Governor, Province of Nova Scotia; His Honour Guy Hiltz, Mayor of the Town of Louisbourg.
3.	Mr. Andy Hogan and Mr. Robert Muir, Members of Parliament representing the constituencies of Cape Breton-East Richmond and Cape Breton-the Sydneys were invited, their constituencies being closely related to the Fortress. Mr. Hogan, the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond, the riding in which Louisbourg is located, was invited to be a member of the Platform party.
4.	No. However, seating was reserved for all invited guests, including Members of Parliament. At ceremonies of this kind, it has never been the practice to identify special areas within
that reserved seating for particular groups or categories of guests.
5.	(a) Yes. The Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. G. A. Regan, Q.C., was asked to speak on behalf of the people of the Province of Nova Scotia, (b) No, as they did not officially represent the people from the riding in which the Park is located and the Premier was officially representing the people of the province of Nova Scotia as a whole.


Mr. Yewchuk: Are mountain climbing parties in Kluanc National Park required to (a) obtain a permit for the expedition (b) apply for a permit three months in advance (c) have at least four members (d) provide a complete list of members (c) furnish medical certificates, signed by a doctor, for each member (f) provide a complete itinerary (g) provide a complete list of personal and community equipment (h) appear at a ranger station for personal inspection (i) identify blood type for each member (j) possess a radio to call for help, or arrange for a regular aircraft flyby and. if so, in each case, for what reason?


B. Keith Penner: Requirements for mountain climbing parties in Kluane National Park are set out in Section 23 of the National Parks Act. (a) Yes. Climbers must check in and out with the Park Warden Service when attempting a climb of any difficulty. Control is achieved by issuing permits, (b) No. This is a guideline, (c) No. This is a guideline, (d) Yes. This is for control purposes. Members are named on permit so park management knows exactly who is on the mountain, (e) No. This is a guideline. (0 Yes. In the event that rescue operations are necessary, this information would provide a starting point in search efforts, (g) No. This is a guideline, (h) There is no need to appear at Park Warden stations. This is a guideline, (i) No. This is a guideline, (j) No. This is a guideline. Depending on the degree of the climb, different degrees of preparedness are encouraged. All climbers are urged to adhere as fully as they can to the guidelines, but for the most severe climbs, such as Mount Logan, all of the guidelines should be adhered to. The primary purpose is concern for the safety of the climbing party. Following these guidelines aids in the prevention of costly and, in many cases, dangerous search and rescue operations.

March 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stanfield: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare's Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate and/or Non-Medical Use of Mood Altering Substances Programme (a) receive requests for funding, applications for funding and/or Reports from the CON-ACT PROGRAMS and, if so, on what dates were requests, applications or reports received (b) receive from the Halifax office of the Directorate, reports regarding the CON-ACT PROGRAMS and, if so (i) on what dates were the reports received (ii) did the reports recommend support of the program (c) request and/or receive research proposals to evaluate the CON-ACT PROGRAMS and, if so (i) what individuals and groups submitted research proposals (ii) was a research proposal approved (iii) who received the Department's approval to conduct an evaluation of the programme (iv) what were the costs incurred to evaluate the programme (v) has the Department received the evaluation of the programme?
2.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare's Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate and/or Non-Medical Use of Mood Altering Substances Programme support the CON-ACT PROGRAMS by way of grants, contributions or awards and, if so (a) in what amounts were the grants, contributions or awards made and on what dates (b) is the Department considering additional support of the programme and, (i) if so, for what reason (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) CON-ACT submission (first) received February 6, 1975. Appraisal of CON-ACT Workshops at the Springhill Medium Security Institution from the National Parole Service in Truro, received March 20, 1975. CON-ACT submission (second and final) received April 23, 1975. (b)(i) Report of CON-ACT received from Halifax October 6, 1975. (ii) The report from Halifax recommended funding of the CON-ACT programme, (c) The Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate, Department of National Health and Welfare, received two research proposals to evaluate the CON-ACT programme, (i) The individuals who submitted a research proposal were: Janice Todd; Dr. H. V. Gamberg. (ii) Yes, a research proposal was approved, (iii) Dr. H. V. Gamberg received the Department's approval to conduct an evaluation of the programme, (iv) Costs: Contract to develop research methodology from February 16, 1976 in the amount of $4,900. Research contribution for the period August 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 in the amount of $18,640. (v) From the contract, the Department received: an interim report, April 29, 1976; a final report, June 30, 1976. The evaluation report from the research contribution will be submitted at the end of the funding period. 2
2. (a) The CON-ACT programme received a contribution for the period January 15, 1976 to August 15, 1976 in the amount of $24,290. (b) The department is not considering further support of the programme, (ii) At the time when the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate recommended funding of the project, it was agreed with the programme that the period of funding would be seven months. The purposes of support for the project were threefold: 1. To assist in the financial stabilization and in the diffusion of an effective rehabilitation programme. 2. To promote the preventative potential of CON-ACT. 3. To evaluate the rehabilitative process within CON-ACT. Evaluation of the programme is currently underway and will be completed by March 31, 1977.


Mr. McCleave: Since the earliest date this year on which it has been possible to keep records, what has been the experience of the six o'clock evening news broadcast and other items of information on CBHT Halifax regarding the appearance of the (a) Minister of Housing and Labour for Nova Scotia (b) honourable Member for Halifax-East Hants by (i) actual voice tapes (ii) pictures with text (iii) interviews (iv) any other means?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a), (b) (iii) The Minister of Housing and Labour for Nova Scotia was interviewed for CBHT news and current affairs programs 18 times during 1976, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants three times, (i), (ii), (iv) Nil.
CBC-INTERVIEW BETWEEN LINDEN MacINTYRE AND MR.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	(a) How many persons called CBHT (Halifax) following the interview between Mr. Linden MacIntyre and the honourable Member for Halifax-East Hants on Friday. December 10. 1976. on "Here Today" to request that the tape of such interview be held (b) who were such persons (c) on whose behalf did each profess to speak?
2.	Will each such person be allowed to pay the cost to the taxpayer?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) One. (b) Not identified by name, (c) Caller indicated he was a member of the Nova Scotia Department of Housing and Labour.
2. No cost is involved. Tapes are held in conformity with CRTC regulations.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Energy. Mines and Resources obtained (a) parttime (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and. if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rale paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1.
March 2, 1977

		(a)	(b)
		Part time	Full time
		Employees	Employees
(i)	British Columbia	nil	nil(ii)	Alberta	nil	1(iii)	Saskatchewan	nil	nil(iv)	Manitoba	nil	nil(v)	Ontario	392	261(vi)	Quebec	nil	nil(vii)	New Brunswick	nil	nil(viii)	Nova Scotia	17	5(ix)	Prince Edward Island	nil	nil(x)	Newfoundland	nil	nil2. One	hundred part time	employees and four full time	
employees were paid from supplementary estimates. All others were paid from main estimates.
3.
	1975	1976
Alberta	$5.46	$6.56Ontario	$5.82	$6.39Nova Scotia	$4.76	$5.40
Other provinces not involved, (b) Unable to supply the average hourly rate paid to employees as payments were made by employment agencies, (c) (i) 1975, $536,304; (ii) 1976, $518,407.


Mr. Herbert: In approximate five year periods, what are the ages of unemployed persons that have been sent on government training courses in the past three years?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Canada Manpower Training Program1 2 Full Time2 Trainees Started Who Were Unemployed Prior To Training By Age Group 1973-74 To 1975-76
1973-74	1974-75	1975-76Age Group	Number	Percent	Number	Percent	Number	PercentUnder 18	2,396	2.4	2,346	2.6	3.362	2.918-19	13,775	13.8	13,172	14.6	17,503	15.120-24	34.439	34.5	31,757	35.2	40,570	35.025-29	17,469	17.5	15,879	17.6	20,980	18.130-34	10,182	10.2	8,932	9.9	11,707	10.135-44	12,777	12.8	10,826	12.0	13,446	11.645-54	6,788	6.8	5,774	6.4	6,723	5.855-64	1.797	1.8	1,443	1.6	1,623	1.465 and Over	200	0.2	90	0.1	-	-TOTAL	99,823	100.0	90,219	100.0	115,914	100.01	Institutional training only, not available for industrial training.2	Not available for part time training.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions 729, 1,037 and 1,199 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of employees involved in the operations of the AIB under salary arrangements and the number who have other forms of contractual arrangements with the Board?
2.	Of those who are salaried employees, how many receive salaries of $25,000 a year or more and, in each case, what arc their names, positions and actual salaries?
3.	Of those who have contracts of one form or another, what are their names, positions and actual amounts of the contracts where the contracts arc for more than $20,000 annually and, in each case, what is the length of the contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Is the government going to increase the number of bookagents in the private sector now handling sales of government publications because of the closing of the Information Canada Bookstores?
2.	What are the (a) names (b) addresses of the official bookagents which handle government publications?
3.	What requirements have been set by the Department of Supply and Services for a bookstore to become an official bookagent for government publications?
4.	What instructions did each of the Information Canada Bookstores located in (a) Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Ottawa (d) Toronto (c) Winnipeg (0 Vancouver give to customers who inquired about where they could purchase government publications after November 5, 1976?
Return tabled.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	For each year 1970 to date, by department, how many public servants (a) enrolled (b) completed (c) dropped out of (i) English (ii) French language training courses?
2.	For each year 1970 to date, what was the total cost to the government for language training for public servants in (a) English (b) French courses?
3.	For each year 1970 to date, how many non-public servants (a) enrolled (b) completed (c) dropped out of federally paid for second language training in (i) English (ii) French and, by groups, how was their eligibility to take such courses determined?
4.	For each year 1970 to date, what was the total cost to the government for language training for those individuals who were not directly employed by the Public Service?
Return tabled.

March 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, 1 raise this question on the first opportunity I have been given to raise it. My question may be a question of privilege relating to the growing trend of the government's to give either not correct answers or not factual answers in respect of questions placed on the order paper.
On November 18 last, if my memory serves me right, I placed a simple question on the order paper relating to the total amount of money going from the government to the province of Quebec and the total amount coming back from the province of Quebec to this government. Yesterday, Sir, 1 received an answer to this question, an answer from the government, stating that such information was not available. Coincidentally, last night when I watched the CTV television news there appeared a program giving exactly that type of information I had requested.
On inquiring of the CTV news, I learned that the information had emanated from Maclean's magazine which, in turn, had obtained the information from the government. Sir, I put myself entirely in your hands, because I do not know how further to proceed. Is it not a question of privilege when a member of parliament, using acknowledged and correct procedures to obtain information from the government, is refused that information and finds that the media can get exactly the same information far more easily than he can? Is that not a question of privilege, Sir?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I shall recognize the minister in a moment. I am smiling, because the matter is difficult enough when definite arguments are raised concerning a question of privilege and I must determine the existence of a question of privilege. But the hon. member is asking me if there is a question of privilege, and that puts me in a much more difficult position.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise as acting Minister of Finance. That information from the department had followed upon some press reports which had been noticed.


Mr. Peters:: Fly across the road and make a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that the information-


William Arnold Peters: Go across the road and make that speech.


Otto Emil Lang: -which was allegedly supplied by the Department of Finance was public information from which certain persons drew their own inferences and conclusions.


William Arnold Peters: Go across the road and say it.
(Mr. Schumacher.]


Otto Emil Lang: -is information which the department does not substantiate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Fly across the road and say it on television.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre rising on the same question of privilege?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, Mr. Speaker, it is another one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has not actually raised a question of privilege but has asked whether a question of privilege exists. Of course it is open to the hon. member, on the basis of preliminary information, to pursue the matter, and if he feels that he is justified in raising it again in the light of that information, which may give him further grounds to argue, perhaps that can be done at a later time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from part of an answer which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) gave today. He suggested that every member of the House would get a copy of the statement he is to make today at the press conference he is to hold. Apparently that statement was neither important nor serious enough to be made in this House. To my knowledge, no member of this House has a copy of that statement, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Certainly I do not have it, and the office of my leader does not have it.
There is a point in our procedures when Your Honour calls for the tabling of documents. I wonder if the minister would now cease his insolence and arrogance, and let members of the House have a copy of the press statement he issued. It concerns the $800 million transfer of debts and the doubling of Seaway tolls which the government has been agonizing and procrastinating about for three or four years. We have been trying to get answers for three or four years. He does not deem it important enough to answer us in this House. Can the minister table his announcement which he felt more important to be in the hands of newspaper reporters before reaching members of the parliament of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is on its way to members' offices. I trust it will arrive there. I do not have copies with me. With the permission of the House, I will undertake to have it tabled just as soon as I can have it sent over from my office.
March 2, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without seeing the document or having it more accurately described, it is not clear whether a press release or something of that sort constitutes the kind of document contemplated in the Standing Order. If the House gives its consent, the minister has undertaken to table the document. Is there unanimous consent that the minister shall have leave to table the document referred to, later today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not certain whether Your Honour interpreted your call for unanimous consent to the tabling of the document as having received unanimous consent. If that was Your Honour's interpretation, I want it clearly understood that I said no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) raises a valid point of order. I again say that the minister has given an undertaking to table the document. Without seeing the document, I cannot tell whether it is in the realm of the minister to table it. That is why 1 asked for consent to be sure. Consent being withheld, we are back to square one, so to speak.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of the questions not answered by the parliamentary secretary. Two questions that I have had on the order paper will be celebrating their fourth anniversary on the tenth of this month. I want to bring that to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. Also, I have another question that has been around quite long. I had information from the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) that he had answered the question on January 24. That answer has yet to appear in the daily reports of the parliamentary secretary and I would like to see if he can find it.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if the hon. member could give the numbers of the questions. Without the numbers, it would be difficult to trace the particular questions to which he refers. I would simply draw to his attention that I am not personally aware of two questions that are four years old that have not been answered. I can assure him, as I have said on other occasions, that we endeavour to answer each and every question as quickly and conscientiously as we can. We will continue to do that. If hon. members have a particular concern or a particular urgency attached to a question, I hope that either in the House or other ways they will draw that to my attention so that I can personally see that their particular question is dealt with as quickly as possible.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted to give the parliamentary secretary the two numbers, they are 1019 and 1032. I thought I made it clear it was four months they were going to celebrate on the order paper, not four years. The other one is question 1453, which the Postmaster General indicated he had signed the answer to in January.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, my department probably receives the most questions. The answers are given as expeditiously as possible. In this particular instance I was under the impression that we had answered the question. 1 subsequently informed the hon. member that I was mistaken and that we had not. We are trying to expedite the answer as quickly as possible.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An extremely important question to my province has been on the order paper since October 13, question No. 333. 1 would be very glad if the parliamentary secretary would give attention to that one. It is extremely important that we have this information as early as possible.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I have had a question on the order paper since October 22, 1976, with regard to the number of employees in various sections of the Post Office. It had previously been on since July 1975. 1 placed it on the order paper again in the new session. The question is still unanswered. I think that the parliamentary secretary is derelict in his duty in not ensuring that these kinds of questions are answered.


Ralph Goodale: What is the number?


John R. Rodriguez: I said question No. 775. Get your ears open.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 would like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary two questions I have had on the order paper since November 15, 1976, Nos. 1055 and 1056, concerning Reed Paper Company and the complicity of the government in providing grants to that company which has polluted the Wabigoon and English River systems.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, perhaps it is simply the rather peculiar spirit that seems to exist in the House today. This kind of a procedure with respect to questions on the order paper is not a particularly productive one in the sense of encouraging answers. As I said a few moments ago, and 1 think it has been demonstrated by the rate of returns on these questions so far in this session, it is our intention and desire to answer the inquiries which hon. members present on the order paper as quickly and efficiently as we possibly can. I pointed out on other occasions that the rate of return in answering questions in this parliament has been very high. I suggest it is the highest that has ever existed.
Be that as it may, this kind of exercise in this House is not a particularly constructive use of House time. 1 simply repeat, if hon. members wish to draw to my attention in other ways the urgency attached to a particular question or the fact that they have an inquiry that has been outstanding for some time, I will be pleased to undertake to them in a personal way to pursue their inquiries and get the answers for them as quickly as possible.

March 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the parliamentary secretary will re-read what he said just a few moments ago when he talked about the peculiar atmosphere in this House. He is wrong. The atmosphere which we have seen exhibited today is not peculiar. We have unhappily now become accustomed to seeing questions not answered, delays in answers to questions on the order paper, and a whole host of other things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am not suggesting that all of the blame should fall on the shoulders of the parliamentary secretary. He is led by others. That is the problem.
The other matter that concerns me is with regard to the answer given by the parliamentary secretary, and I want him to read it very carefully. He may not have meant it. He may want to correct it after he has read it. He implied a threat that if we continue asking legitimate questions, such as about old answers to old questions, that might affect the production of answers.


Ralph Goodale: I never said that.


Walter David Baker: The parliamentary secretary denies that. I would ask him to read very carefully what he said with respect to this matter. I hope he is not suggesting it is improper for a member, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, whose question has been left unanswered for weeks or months, to stand up and ask when the answer will be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary has asked us to let him know what questions we want answered. I put down a question on October 13, question No. 487, which I consider to be one of special importance, and I hope the parliamentary secretary will give this matter his immediate attention and try to obtain the answer for me rather than waste the time of the House and preventing us from getting on with legislation we all want to deal with.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: It seems to me this is a silly and shameful argument which is being carried on by members on the other side, wasting the time of the House, and it is becoming perfectly obvious that none of the opposition parties is prepared to get on with the orders of the day. It amounts to contempt for the Canadian people. Let us get on with the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the Minister of Transport) that Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy of Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, when I interrupted my remarks last night to call it ten o'clock I had made a few preliminary remarks about Bill C-33. There are three main objectives-definition, authority, and improvement. I said transportation was a top priority, that it was a huge, difficult and urgent one, just like finding oil. I said this bill was worth supporting and I felt I could support it, depending upon what kind of general acceptance it found in its passage through the House, and upon what chances there were of its provisions being carried out.
There is, however, a logical progress of events, and I think this support has to be conditional upon something. It has to be conditional upon the fact that there are some election campaign promises already on the books which have not been fulfilled to the satisfaction of many people. In other words, first things first.
The national transportation program which has been outlined in some detail since 1974 is, in my view, an excellent program especially for the long term, but it really needs a strong short term start, something it does not appear to have. There are many advantages attached to this program, with its objective of providing better, cheaper, and more energy efficient transportation, giving Canadian industry a boost in the transport field ajid giving the economy a general boost. But besides transport there is this other issue-the business of honouring commitments, the business of keeping election promises, the business of the integrity and the credibility of government. In my opinion it is not good enough to say with regard to a top priority operation like transport that there is not enough money now.
March 2, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: It is not good enough to say this is not our business, that it is the business of the provinces and the municipalities. If this is important, then it is important to find the money, and if the Canadian people see this as their business, and if they want it to be the business of the federal government, we have an obligation to make it our business.
It is difficult to pin these promises down in terms of exact amounts. It seems to me something was mentioned about $300 million for five years for the entire transportation program, one third of which was to be available in the form of financial aid to commuter systems. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is really a drop in the bucket. It may seem a lot of money, but it is certainly not a lot in relation to the transportation needs of the whole country. The Toronto area alone needs $50 million just for starters-half the total amount mentioned. If there is anything with which I would disagree in relation to the campaign promises in this field, if there was one mistake, it was the open-ended cost-sharing provision. I think this is one part of the promise which the federal government could feel justified in breaking. It is the type of nonsensical thing we have been trying to get away from in medicare, and hospital care. We know the temptation is just too great. It simply does not work. But there is no reason why we cannot come up with a decent amount of money within a stipulated time frame.
The type of commitment which was made in terms of open cost-sharing-to the extent of 100 per cent for commuter rolling stock, 50 per cent for platforms and supporting structures, and 25 per cent for inner city transit-is obviously unrealistic. We have had some discussion about this, and one of the stipulations we would make in this connection is that all the equipment and all the machinery be made in Canada. Another was that there be a limited time frame, thus providing an opportunity to reassess the program-in other words, the budget would not get out of hand. Finally, due credit was to be given for the contribution of each level of government, including the federal government. This should not be a problem; we all want credit for what we do. Up until now it does seem to have been a problem in terms of the levels of government not getting along together.
The reasons given by ministers for restricting this program, perhaps for even cancelling it, are as follows: first, restraint. We believe in restraint. The caucus has been urging it on the government for two and a half years. The government seems, finally, to be doing a good job of it. But the question is: where should restraint be applied? Second, as I mentioned before, there is the business of jurisdiction and political games-a lack of credit for what is done.
Some have asked is there a federal role for urban transit? Why not? Certainly the federal government has assumed a role in urban housing. And there are other areas. If the provinces do not want that kind of support from the federal government they are free to refuse it.
There was an original premise built into this program, Mr. Speaker, and many people realized this. This was not just a
National Transportation Act
way to spend money. This was not supposed to be throwing money down the drain. This whole transport program, besides being important in itself, was designed both to save and to make money by providing cheaper, more efficient transportation. Those things have to be taken into account when we talk of cancelling the program or restraining it. It does not sound as though they were taken into account. Against this is the cost of supporting air travel and private transportation as we have done up to now.
The costs of infrastructure at airports, and the upkeep and construction of roads and super highways, parking lots and all the rest are enormous. Surely there is money to be saved there which could be put into a better transportation program?
What about a possible tie-in with Canada Works? The opportunity exists in a transportation program to provide jobs. But in this case, if there is a public transit industry, we should provide real jobs, not makeshift jobs. Corporations under Canada Works are allowed to sponsor projects; why not projects concerning public transit? Presumably there is an opportunity to spend money there. I suppose this will require a budgetary exercise, a complete rearranging of our priorities and expenditures, looking outside transportation into other departments.
I heard recently that we may be planning to spend $2.5 billion on jet fighters. To my mind there is no question what are the priorities at the present time. I am all for adequate defence and support for the military, but good public transport comes first, in my opinion.
Perhaps we will have to take another look at our social and welfare programs and ask whether there are some unnecessary expenses involved, especially in regard to universality of payments, which means paying benefits to people who do not need them, to people who are wealthy and can get along without them. Perhaps there is money to be saved in limiting the bureaucracy, the size of the civil service. I think it is timely to think in terms of rearranging our budget priorities since we will soon be dealing with the main estimates. I think they are a little hard for the average MP to understand, but none the less we can tie this subject into them. Also we have a spring budget coming up which is designated to stimulate the economy.
There is a temptation, Mr. Speaker, for some people to think that the public and the media are not interested in this subject, that it will go away by itself. On the contrary, there have been a flurry of reports in the media and it is the number one subject of talk in my riding, and I imagine in many others. There have been many calls from reporters for interviews even of lowly backbenchers. For example, the Milton Champion reports that Milton definitely needs an extension of the Go train system but that federal funds had been withdrawn and Go train plans shelved. I know that will lead to a lot of disappointment. The Globe and Mail reported that Liberal MP's were considering a revolt over transit cuts. I think that is a little bit over-dramatic but it indicates the kind of feelings that have been generated.

March 2, 1977
National Transportation Act
Local Halton people are almost unanimously urging support for this program; I have heard no one speak against it. Telegrams from local politicians have been entirely in support of this transit program. I have received a telegram from Halton regional chairman, Rick Morrow, as well as from Burlington mayor, Mary Munro. Let me just read the telegram from Rick Morrow:
Wish to express serious concern regarding announced withdrawal of federal funds for urban transit. Will seriously affect planned extension of Go servicing to Milton, Oakville and Burlington. Request use of your office to seek government reconsideration of the matter.
"Ottawa Makes Chaos for Commuters" reports the Toronto Daily Star for February 22, 1977. The members for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) and Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) were cited as not helping, but that is incorrect and I think has subsequently been corrected. The Oakville paper, the Journal Record, carried the headline "Federal Transit Aid Delayed, Not Dead: Philbrook"; that was certainly a high hope in the determination. "The transit program has been curtailed due to restraint", said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in a recent Toronto interview. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is reported by the Ottawa Citizen for February 24 as saying that the "onus is on others for transit". Then just at the end of last week the Globe and Mail attributes the headline "Transit Support Plan Still Before Cabinet" to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). So maybe we have a life yet.
We need many modes of transportation in this country, and we need them urgently. We need them for many parts of the country. We need faster intercity rail, not only for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor but for many other parts of the country, such as from Calgary to Edmonton and so on. Most of all, we need a lot of help for the maritimes, because they tend to be neglected. Then what about Newfoundland and the old "Bullet"? And let us not forget the prairie services.
Perhaps we also need plans to develop the controversial STOL aircraft for outlying cities, because what else is there? The people themselves say that trains and buses are not sufficient, and that is certainly correct if we want to decentralize and relieve urban crowding. We need better intercity transit for our urban areas, and we certainly need a much better freight deal to help solve our western grain and port problems.
I come from a suburban area, one of many in Canada. Perhaps there are 25 major areas like mine, and my particular interest is commuter transit in trying to convey people back and forth between suburbs and cities in a decent, civilized manner. Some people say there should be no problem, that people should live where they work, but I think at the moment that is a little unrealistic and will take a long time to bring about. Until this happens, we must look after these people. We need more Go trains now; we cannot delay such decisions because we do not want to bother changing the budget. Most of all, we need less emphasis on what we have had a bellyfull of in the last generation, namely, too much air travel.
Out Halton way-and this also applies to my colleague for Mississauga-we need $15 million fast to relieve terrible
[Mr. Philbrook.J
congestion, and I am sorry to say that this is half of the entire amount budgeted for the next five years for commuter transit. We need this money for Go trains and for extra rolling stock. We need additional Go train service to a place like Milton, which is virtually isolated despite the fact it is near a big city, not new Go buses. Improvements are required to Union Station to facilitate arrival and departure. We must relieve the bottleneck at the Bathurst Street crossing. We need improved trackage and, as I say, additional cars. The Ontario government and the Toronto city council have made commitments to spend money for this purpose, to the best of my knowledge, and the political lesson of this step has not been lost on them. If we do not come through and meet this requirement, we are going to be very, very sorry.
With all due respect to my party and my leader, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that my main responsibility is to my constituents at this moment. This responsibility of mine is closely related to the improvement of nation-wide transit and to campaign promises. Even our opponents in provincial and municipal governments have made commitments in this regard. They have stuck their necks out and are now left holding the bag, being faced with a great deal of expenditure.
I am prepared to support this bill, but this is certainly contingent on some kind of tangible evidence coming to light very soon that the government is prepared to follow through on its campaign promises to improve transportation. I would invite my colleagues to take the same stand.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-33 this afternoon, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada, and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters.
It is interesting to note that proposed section 3(2)(d) provides that "competition within and between modes of transportation should be encouraged where economic and technical factors permit". I have nothing against competition. I am going to refer to the trucking industry of Canada, particularly in Manitoba, and to the problems the government is laying on Manitoba's doorstep at the present time with the introduction by the Post Office of their new postpak delivery service, which I suggest will unfairly compete with the trucking industry. I will go into that in more detail in just a moment. In subclause (3)(a) in the bill dealing with the minister's responsibilities it is stated:
[DOT] (noo)
-inquire into and undertake measures to ensure the effective and inefficient development of the various forms of transport over which parliament has jurisdiction;
With the introduction of the postpak delivery service we are certainly not going to have an effective and efficient development of various modes of transport, especially in the trucking
March 2, 1977

industry. This postpak concept has been introduced recently by the Post Office. It is a new concept for moving merchandise from coast to coast. It is a mini container system using the mailbags to move goods in bulk. Mailbags can carry up to 66 pounds.
A couple of years ago the government commissioned a study costing a quarter of a million dollars on the difference in deliveries between the Post Office providing its own trucks, and prfvate industry. This Samson Belair study contained recommendations, facts, and figures showing why all mail delivery should be left to the private sector because the savings would amount to millions of dollars. Unfortunately this detailed study and research were completely ignored, and the Post Office took over postal delivery and set up its own trucking system.
In the last parliament I tried to obtain a copy of this Samson Belair document but the government refused to table it. Fortunately I was able to obtain it. This study should have been referred to one of the standing committees discussing Post Office operations for a complete and detailed study and review of the recommendations made in it. I would like to read some of the recommendations in the report. It reads:
In future the department should contract for city services unless there is conclusive evidence as to the unavailability of this service on reasonable terms from outside the department.
The present government operations should be reviewed with the objective of securing the services outside. Potential savings from the conversion of the four existing government operations would amount to approximately $725,000 per year.
What they are saying is that it would be $725,000 a year cheaper to let a private trucking company handle postal deliveries. How such a recommendation could possibly have been ignored has never been explained. Now we find that the Post Office has come up with this postpak proposal which is causing no end of problems to the trucking industry, as I will explain in more detail in a few minutes.
The Samson Belair report goes on to say:
The department should review all other government performed transportation and distribution services to determine whether new or increased needs could not be more satisfactorily performed by the private sector.
The study goes on to say:
Considering only direct field costs, the four existing government operated urban services are more costly than an equivalent contracted operation. Were other costs such as rent, administration, interest on capital, and taxes on such items as gasoline, purchases, and corporate income to be considered, the argument for a contracted service would be further substantiated.
So you see there is no end of evidence as to why the Post Office should not have its own fleet to deliver mail. The additional cost is striking. What I am asking the minister to do this afternoon is to review this postpak proposal and consult the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) with a view to disbanding this costly and unnecessary service being established by the Post Office at this time.
The report goes on to read:
Operational factors such as level of service, performance, control and flexibility associated with an effective contracted service are at least equivalent to a government operation.
National Transportation Act
The major factor in the cost gap between government and contracted services is labour productivity, and to a lesser extent administrative and supervisory costs.
The Samson Belair study stated that:
A contracted operation for this service is less costly than a government operation.
So it is less costly to leave to private truckers. It seems to be plain common sense to leave it to them. The study states further:
Payment on a point-of-call basis results in increased productivity and efficiency since the contractor is provided with an incentive to complete deliveries as early as possible.
Payment on a possible point-of-call basis is easier to administer because it eliminates the need to maintain a detailed record of hours worked by the contractor.
I will give you an example of what happened when the Post Office took over the mail delivery service and established its own fleet.
These are answers to questions on the Order Paper with which the government provided me. When the Post Office set up its own fleet in the city of Toronto, it required 44 more trucks than the private contractor needed for delivering the mail. It required 100 more employees than the private sector needed when it handled mail delivery in Toronto. The city of Montreal needed 10 more trucks and 160 more men when the Post Office set up its own delivery service. In the city of London, Ontario, 19 more trucks and 18 more men were needed. In Hamilton it took 15 more trucks to handle mail delivery and 17 more men. In the Kitchener-Waterloo area 8 more trucks were needed and 7 more men were needed to handle mail delivery. You can see the fantastic additional costs.
The ironic part of all this is that this is the point at which the quality of the service started to deteriorate. In my riding there is a large area of small businesses. Prior to the time when the Post Office handled its own deliveries the businessmen could set their clock by the time when the private mail contractor would come around with the mail each day. After the Post Office set up its own operation in Winnipeg, the businessmen never knew when the mail was coming, and yet the Post Office employs many more men and uses many more trucks.
There was an article in the Manitoba Highway News dated February, 1977, dealing with the problems that the new postpak is causing in Manitoba. They have carried out a detailed study of this and they are continuing to study the matter. I should like to quote from an article headed "Post Office Now in the Trucking Business. Big Deficit Seen?" The article reads:
Not content with acquiring a deficit of over half a billion dollars during the past year, the Post Office department has embarked on a scheme whereby, without too much more effort on their part, the bill the next time around could reach the billion dollar mark.
A great part of this will come through the postpak idea which started several years ago with a great fanfare of superior service and much lower cost than the established services being held out to the shipping public.
Low rates were established because the shipper had to be responsible for delivery to the Post Office and prepay all shipments which could consist of up to

March 2, 1977
National Transportation Act
50 lbs. in bags supplied by the Post Office or cartons of certain sizes and standards up to 66 lbs. In cities over 10,000 population delivery would be made by the P.O., otherwise the customer would be phoned. Delivery was to be similar to first class mail service. However, we find that it has been admitted that, under certain circumstances, the P.O. would also pick up at shippers' premises the postpak shipments. The development of this service can have a very serious impact on the truck service presently being provided by the regular over-the-road carrier as many small points have no other means of transport than the truck carrier on a regular basis.
Two main complaints arise from this operation. First, the trucker should not have to face a competitor that has access to the public purse to meet any deficits.
They will certainly be coming to the public purse to meet deficits with regard to this Postpak proposal, as shown by the other evidence I had read into the record this afternoon.
The trucker has no such access. Secondly, they should not have to compete with a delivery service by private contractors to the Post Office that are not required to meet the same standards as the licensed carrier. The Postpak system is said to bypass the ordinary P.O. procedures but does not require to move under bills of lading, or other terms and conditions as required by provincial regulatory boards. Labour regulations, either provincial or federal, are not required. The present licence fees for a truck hauling mail in Manitoba with a gross weight of 24,000 lbs. is as follows: based on a 1974 model truck, the fee would be $107.00, including insurance with $200.00 deductible all perils. For a semi-trailer carrying up to 80,000 lbs. the fee is $196.00 with no mileage limit. The regular line haul P.S.V. operator is required to pay $637.00 for an equivalent weight with a $500.00 deductible coverage. For the semi-trailer with 80,000 lbs. the fees would be $978.00 based on 1976 regulations.
Hon. members can see that this service should be provided by private truckers who are faced with these heavy licence fees; the government should not be coming out with this postpak proposal to hinder them and cause them more problems. We have enough problems with our sagging economy and so forth without the Post Office competing with private trucking companies.
The article continues as follows:
This problem has been brought to the attention of the various motor carrier boards in Canada and action has been requested to correct this inequity. However, it seems that most provinces are afraid to challenge the rights of the Post Office and, as a result, very little has been accomplished. At the present time the Canadian Trucking Association, through its national provincial standards council, is actively pursuing a course of action which we hope will bring some results.
Another activity of the Post Office is the lowering of charges on fourth class parcels. Recently they advertised in Winnipeg that they would guarantee next day delivery on fourth class parcels up to a weight of 35 lbs. This delivery was to be to any post office south of Lynn Lake, which is 600 miles north of Winnipeg.
The charge for a two-pound parcel was to be, for a distance of up to 150 miles, 60c.
Hon. members can see that taxpayers are going to be subsidizing this postpak delivery service which has been set up by the Post Office.
The article goes on:
On enquiring at the Post Office as to how many hands this parcel would go through before reaching its destination, it was said that six people would handle it! It would then be transported by air, if necessary, and delivered. Other weights were comparable.
Can hon. members imagine all this for 60 cents, six people handling it? It will be going by truck and by air. What a ridiculous proposal! The article goes on:
Efficiency plus: a tender has just been called for the furnishing of two one-ton trucks to provide service between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay. We wonder why, [Mr. McKenzie.)
when there are several airflights each day. at least four buses and five truck lines per day.
Now we find that the government is going to provide two more trucks, when all it has to do is contract mail delivery and parcel delivery out to bus companies or to the five truck lines which run to Thunder Bay. How ridiculous can the government get?
Here we are discussing a bill to make it easier and better for transportation businesses in the country, and the government comes out with a proposal like this which will cause no end to competitive problems and unfair competition. The article goes on:
Maybe it's time that the opposition at Ottawa started asking questions about Post Office operations in this area.
That is the only part of the article I do not agree with, because the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and other hon. members on this side have certainly asked many questions about the Post Office, and I have certainly pursued Post Office problems in the last parliament and in this one. The article concludes by saying the following:
Is it any wonder that Post Office deficits in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars are believable?
When I obtained my copy of the Samson Belair study on postal operations and on whether mail delivery should be left in the hands of private trucking companies, I obtained information with regard to the number of additional trucks and employees which will be needed when the Post Office establishes its own trucking service, and I raised this matter in the standing committee. I presented a motion that we review the report and conduct a study as to why it will take 44 additional trucks to deliver mail in Toronto and so forth, but my motion was defeated. I remember the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) being at that committee meeting, and he was very emphatic in saying that he did not want to conduct any investigation into this ridiculous and costly operation. That is why I said no to him last night when he was making his mundane speech on transportation and explaining why hon. members of the New Democratic Party support the government's getting into the trucking business and why they will not allow an investigation into the costly operation of the Post Office.
In closing, I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), to get their heads together with a view to closing down this postpak proposal and to stop putting all these obstacles in front of the private trucking companies of Manitoba and of Canada.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East);: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on this bill to amend the National Transportation Act because essentially transportation represents the history of this country. The history of Canada is the history of transportation. An area which is so large that it stretches from ocean to ocean has to be linked together one way or another. If we go back 200 or 300 years to the first movement of goods by canoe or by pack, we will see how integrally transportation of goods and people was part of the history of Canada.
March 2, 1977

The bill we have before us is basically a good bill. I agree with its thrust. The implementation of the National Transportation Act in 1967 and the creation of the Canadian Transport Commission created a number of problems. Too often parliament has set up an agency or a Crown corporation to operate the policies approved by parliament, and these agencies, Crown corporations or commissions become very removed from the day to day policy direction which should be followed.
Events change rapidly in our modern world, and acts such as the 1967 National Transportation Act have become impediments to the development of transportation goals in this country. I think transportation must be regarded as a tool of social development.
As 1 said, I basically support the thrust of the bill, but I have some grave reservations. My reservations are such that perhaps 1 will withhold my support from the bill. My arguments are basically similar to those put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook). We are both concerned about urban transit, intercity transit, commuter trains, and the role of the federal government in these fields. Back in 1975-I think it was July of 1975-the then minister of transport, the Hon. Jean Marchand, tabled in this House three very impressive and well researched documents entitled, I believe, "A National Transportation Policy for Canada". They were in three parts. One dealt with movement of freight and commodities, one dealt with inter-city passenger service, and there was an over-all summary.
These documents represented years of well-thought-out research by the department and the government in an attempt to rationalize and come to grips with the transportation problems that affect this country. Nowhere in these documents, however, did we see any reference to potential federal government assistance to urban or commuter transit, and this is the main reason why 1 have great reservations about this particular bill.
Some people may say I am being intellectually dishonest to consider not supporting a bill to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act which does not really relate to federal assistance to urban and commuter transit. This argument is rubbish, Mr. Speaker. If we talk about federal assistance to urban and commuter transit, we do so in the context of a national transportation policy.
The bill before us is a good one; it is the keystone of the government's transportation policy and should be applauded. There may be those on the other side who lick their lips or howl in delight because supporters of the government decide they have reservations about a particular bill. I do not think they should put too much stock in the stand that I take, and 1 know I speak for the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) in this. We are in no way nonsupportive of the government and its attempts to come to grips with the serious problems facing the country, whether they be problems of the economy or of national unity. We are 100 per cent behind the government. The fact that we are general supporters of the government,
National Transportation Act
however, does not mean to say we have to agree with every aspect of government policy. This is where I am making this particular distinction.
Transportation problems do not constitute a major issue, according to the Gallup poll. We have to realize that there are some people on the Hill and off the Hill who live by the Gallup poll alone. While transportation problems do not constitute a major issue for a majority of Canadians, nevertheless those people who live in our cities, in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver are concerned about the credibility of a government that makes promises that it fails to fulfil.
Let me be firm on one point, Mr. Speaker. The promises made to assist urban transit were unrealistic in the first place. It is questionable whether the federal government has the constitutional obligation to finance urban transit. Further, the promises implied that the federal government would involve itself in an open-ended funding program. This is precisely the position the government is trying to reverse with the recent agreement with the provinces on medicare. That is to say, the federal government has the obligation to encourage universal programs and standards across the country, and further it would and should encourage such programs and stapdards only for a fixed period of time.
There is no doubt that the federal government has the right to encourage the development of public transport for obvious reasons, such as land use planning, energy efficiency and net social cost. The question is how it should be done.
Let us look at some of the promises made by this party in the 1974 election campaign. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) wishes there were no copies of this document left floating around the House of Commons, but I have a copy and I should like to put those promises on the record.
The government promised to pay 100 per cent of the cost of new commuter vehicles manufactured in Canada; to pay 50 per cent of the cost of new stations and platforms forming part of the system; to pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of all vehicles purchased each year for public transit within Canadian cities and which were manufactured in Canada. Financial support was to be made available to encourage Canadian design and engineering of top quality urban and suburban transit vehicles, systems, machinery and equipment. For smaller municipalities the government offered assistance not only in design, engineering, and financing, but in the form of expert advice in bringing new transit systems into operation. The government was determined to encourage Canadian industry to develop so-called "off the shelf' standardized systems and equipment, such as telebuses and urban commuter trains which could save the country millions of dollars in development costs and which would encourage Canadian transport designers, engineers, and manufacturers to become world leaders.
The government was to encourage urban transit system innovations, including further demonstration projects financed by the federal government. The government offered to make best use of existing railway rights of way and track in urban and suburban areas for new commuter and urban transit lines
3594

March 2, 1977
National Transportation Act
with a view to reducing the high cost of such systems to Canadian municipalities.
The government maintained it would rapidly implement the Railway Relocation Act to ensure that railway relocations in cities also contributed to the right kind of city growth.
Only a few of these promises were ever discharged, the most notable being one I have not read. The government was committed to removing the 12 per cent sales tax on all 12 passenger and up vehicles which would provide service as part of an urban transit system. This was done in the budget of 1975. It has helped municipalities considerably. The 12 per cent tax on large transit vehicles, such as the acquisition of subway cars in Toronto, or high speed street cars, amounts to a very large sum. I know the Toronto Transit Commission is particularly grateful, and I am sure most of the other municipal transit systems in Canada are grateful for the removal of this tax.
To recap, Mr. Speaker, the three main urban and commuter promises made by the government in 1974 were to pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of all Canadian made vehicles purchased by urban transit systems; to pay 100 per cent of the cost of new commuter vehicles such as the Go transit buses in Ontario; and to pay 50 per cent of the cost of new stations and platforms used by commuter systems.
The basic problem with these promises is their total cost and their implication of ongoing funding. With the need of the government to reduce its spending it is quite obvious that there just is not the money available to meet these promises in their entirety. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Halton, I have urged the government to restrain its spending and I think it has done a good job in curtailing expenditures in a difficult economic period.
The provinces and the cities do have an urgent need for financial assistance, however, and the federal government needs to restore some credibility with the public by going part way to discharge its promises. This then is the debate in which I am involved with the government: how much can we afford to do, and at what time should this assistance be given?
Let us take a closer look at the federal responsibility in urban and commuter transit. While it can be argued that the federal government does not have the constitutional obligation toward commuter services as such, the government has, over the past year, assumed a constitutional obligation toward directing growth away from cities-an obligation toward the demographic features of Canada and, to a lesser extent, toward a more socially conducive use of land resources. This can be seen in the conceptual approach to the new immigration act now before the House, for some of the reasons mentioned were given as the rationale for the new Immigration Act. Therefore the federal government has some obligation and moral jurisdiction in this area. I was talking about commuters a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker.
Similarly, while the federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction in the matter of urban transport, it has a

constitutional obligation in the field of energy conservation, which includes an obligation towards Canadian industry and the creation of domestic job opportunities, in addition to its political obligations. Of course, speaking in purely political terms, we are obligated to help the municipalities and provinces.
Before I outline the extent of the commitment which would be appropriate for urban and commuter assistance, let me acknowledge that the government has made promises in the area of commuter assistance. There has been an ongoing program of assistance to provinces and municipalities with regard to urban and commuter transit.
Grants were first made available in the fiscal year 1972-73 for research and demonstration projects. About one year ago the government announced a program of capital assistance for various commuter projects. The first grants under this program are to be made on April 1, 1977. The purpose of the program is to assist provincial and municipal authorities to design and develop new technology, operations, innovations, etc. for urban transit. It is also to assist those authorities with the purchase of commuter vehicles and related facilities.
The provisions of these programs are as follows. Under the Department of Transport Act, the Transportation Development Agency may enter into agreements with provinces or municipalities to share the costs of transportation research over a set period of time. Besides providing financial support, the agency is to participate in the project, as a member of the steering committee. It is to monitor progress and provide advice and policy direction. In addition, under the capital assistance project for urban commuter services, grants will be made to provinces and municipalities to assist in the purchase of commuter vehicles and related facilities. The program will provide $100 million over five years, beginning April 1, 1977.
I contend that $100 million over five years, or $20 million a year, is not enough. My colleague from Halton suggested that the Go-transit system in Ontario needs to have an immediate $50 million spent on it, or about half the amount allotted for all of Canada. Clearly the government must make more money available for this program.
Let me now say a word about the achievements of programs designed to help municipalities and provinces in the field of commuter systems. From fiscal year 1972-73 to the end of the fiscal year 1975-76, a total of $1,233,900 was spend on research and demonstration projects. Projects were supported in Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and each of the prairie provinces. Therefore it is incorrect to suggest that the government has not discharged the promises it made in 1974. The question is, to what extent has it discharged those promises and how much more should be done?


Mr. Leggatt:: Keep them for the next election.


David Michael Collenette: Why not?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Once you discharge them, you have wasted them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 2, 1977


David Michael Collenette: Recently the Ontario government has made several statements about our obligation to keep the promise we made with respect to aid to commuter systems. The minister of transport in Ontario said that the recent statement of the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), that our promises to help urban commuter transit were dead, would mean a complete halt to the expansion of the provincially operated Go-transit system. That system was to serve Milton, in the constituency of the hon. member for Halton, Richmond Hill, and the area north of Toronto lying in the constituency of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). The minister in Ontario contends that this service cannot be expanded. That is absolute nonsense.
The improvement or expansion of the Go-transit system in and around Toronto depends upon improvements to Toronto's union station, better access to ticket offices, expansion of platforms, realignment of tracks in stations, and also on the reconstruction of the Bathurst Street bridge. At present there is a bottleneck at the Bathurst Street bridge. There is ongoing maintenance of passenger equipment, a lot of shunting in the areas and, in addition, heavy industry on the waterfront of Toronto. This industry must have access to general rail lines of downtown Toronto.
I must say that the number of tracks now going under the Bathurst Street bridge constitute a problem; the railways have told the province that the bridge must be rebuilt and more tracks laid in order to accommodate increased services. The question is, do these two projects, involving the improving of Union Station, ticket facilities and so on, and removing the bottleneck at the Bathurst Street bridge, come under the government's promised program to give capital assistance for the purchase of equipment? I say they do not.
There is a perfectly adequate program of grade separation which is implemented across the country. Under it we remove railroad tracks, or put railway tracks under roads, or build subways and have the tracks going over the road. I am sure that money could be found in the existing budget for the improvement of the Bathurst Street bottleneck. Similarly, it would not need an astronomical sum to improve Union Station and those other facilities I mentioned. The amount is in the order of S10 million or $15 million, of which the federal contribution would be only a portion, perhaps 25 per cent. The city of Toronto has agreed to contribute money, and the province will also be responsible for much of the expense.
If I may digress, Mr. Speaker, it may be remembered that the two national railways a few years ago proposed to rebuild completely Union Station, or relocate Union Station and some of the tracks. The proposal included the expansion of the station, which could accommodate increased traffic, and the rebuilding of the subway access. In other words, it was intended to rebuild a large transportation complex which would serve the needs of Torontonians for many years. The railways offered to do this at no cost to the taxpayers of Toronto, Ontario or Canada-all of which are the same people, if one wants to look at it that way. Unfortunately the objection of a
National Transportation Act
group of so-called radical reformers put this project in great jeopardy.
Toronto city council faced many difficulties. So many conditions were laid down, and so many complaints were raised about the project, that the railways finally said, "Forget it, we are not going to build metro centre. We will deny downtown Toronto this great revenue base which would include office buildings, apartment complexes and the new Massey Hall." The new hall was to be located in that general area as part of the project. Along with that went the promise of the railways to build a completely new transportation terminal for Toronto for next to nothing. I just mention that in passing.
If you read the newspapers, listen to television or the radio, you get the impression that it is just the federal government that is hampering the proper growth of transit services for commuters in Toronto. This, of course, is part of the Ontario government's tactic. They are in a very precarious position in the legislature, being attacked on all sides. They will use any ruse or argument for political gain. I suppose we have to understand their predicament, but we do not have to condone it.
It has been suggested, perhaps by the Minister of Transport and others, that a certain amount of the money which the Department of Transport- allocates to each province for such things as grade separation, railway relocation, and other normal statutory expenditures is used for other things. The minister says to Ontario, "Here is your money, this is what you are going to get." Ontario does not have to apply that to grade separations or railway relocations, whether it be in Niagara Falls, and I know there is a project contemplated there, or in Sudbury. If it prefers to apply the money to improve commuter services in and around Toronto, it has that flexibility. That is very generous of the minister. However, he should not tell his colleagues and this House that that would constitute some discharging of our responsibility with regard to assistance to urban and commuter transit. These are ongoing statutory problems that have nothing whatsoever to do with the promises made in 1974.
My colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), who is in the House today, has done a lot of work, together with the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) on the problem of grade separations. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. However, $20 million to $30 million could be spent on this one portion in the east end of metropolitan Toronto, the borough of Scarborough, to eliminate the grade separations. It is not really good form for the minister to say this is Ontario's money under statutory programs, but they can use it for commuter services and we will count that as discharging our promises to commuter transit. That argument just does not wash with me.
I am not issuing ultimatums but, like my colleague from Halton, there are some general requirements that I would like to see met by the government. My support for this bill is somewhat contingent upon their being met. I wish to reiterate them briefly.
3596

March 2, 1977
National Transportation Act
First, any federal financial assistance in the fields of urban or commuter transit must exclusively involve Canadian made systems and equipment. We have a pretty good record in this area. Hawker Siddeley of Thunder Bay have a world-wide reputation for making high speed, efficient, light subway trains. General Motors of Canada make most of the buses used by municipal transit systems. I believe they are built in London, Ontario. I am not sure whether the Western Flyer Company is still operating. In any event, they have received considerable orders from municipal transit systems over the past few years.
Second, all federal financial assistance must be allocated within specific time parameters. I touched on this earlier. The federal government cannot get itself into another open-ended spending program. It cannot just write a blank cheque for the provinces and municipalities to go on spending willy-nilly.
This has been done with very good intentions over the past ten or 20 years. We found that the provinces have not been responsible with the federal government's money. As I mentioned earlier, this was one of the main arguments for putting ceilings on medicare expenditures and the negotiation last November with the provinces to give them some of the tax points in return for them operating exclusively the medicare system. The federal financial commitments would not be forthcoming. They would get the money and spend it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question at this time?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) is always kind and generous. With that kind and generous spirit, I am sure he will recognize that the hour is fast approaching six o'clock. There are other points I would like to make. If the hon. member will take the matter up with me privately, I will be very pleased to answer his questions.
Third, all federal financial assistance given to either Canadian Crown corporations and provincial or municipal transportation systems must receive full credit as an initiative made by the government of Canada. This cannot be regarded as a petty argument.
When dealing with provinces which routinely break faith in federal-provincial agreements it is absolutely necessary that the taxpayers of this country know which particular level of government is granting tax dollars in the field of urban transit, commuter transit, or whatever it may be. Too often moneys are given to the provinces, whether it be 25 per cent, 50 per cent or whatever, and the federal assistance is not acknowledged. Canadians should be informed that this is an initiative taken by the parliament of Canada.
There are other stipulations or suggestions I would make. Stipulations is a very pejorative term, of course. 1 will say suggestions. Federal Financial assistance to urban or commuter transit should pay for capital costs only, not operating costs. This is very important.
Finally, I would propose a re-adjustment of the formula outlined in June, 1974. I mentioned it earlier-25 per cent
[Mr. Collenette.)
toward the cost of urban vehicles and 100 per cent toward the cost of commuter vehicles. We should reduce the percentages somewhat.
If we are getting into a period of fixed funding for three or five years, we should scale down the original commitment. However, we should make some commitment. We cannot ignore the promise of assistance to urban and commuter transit acquisitions for municipalities or provinces. It cannot be completely ignored.
I would suggest 10 per cent toward the cost of urban vehicles, 25 per cent toward the cost of commuter vehicles, and 10 per cent toward the cost of new stations and platforms forming part of any commuter system. This is a reasonable compromise.
It was mentioned earlier that we do not have the money to expand urban systems. In the absolute sense that is true, because we are engaged in a period of restraint. However, there is a lot of money for a lot of other programs. I am not talking about those outside the Department of Transport. I would be loath to start chopping at other areas of government expenditures, certainly those I am not as familiar with as transport.
Having been a member of the Transport Committee since my election in 1974, it strikes me that an awful lot of the department's budget could bear further scrutiny. It was only a year and a half or two years ago that the government was prepared to spend $400 million on the Pickering airport. We know that figure was completely unrealistic in light of the final costs of Mirabel, which is rumoured to have cost more than $1 billion. We cannot get a straight figure on how much it costs.
In any event, the government was prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an airport that had not been fully justified. Sure, it was justified, I believe, by the Gibson inquiry, but many other critics have suggested that the building of a second airport in Toronto would be folly. Nevertheless, money was available at one time.
Money has been available to buy grain cars for the west. I do not want my colleagues from the west to take offence. I realize the government is in a bind. For decades governments in this country have failed to solve the basic problem posed by freight rate levels in western Canada. The railways cannot make a dollar hauling grain. The CP is a private company and I suppose it ought to make a profit. CN is not, but we want CN to make a profit if possible. And we have not been able to do anything but say, "We shall give you the money to buy hopper cars." However, in a rational transportation system the federal government would not be called upon to subsidize the means of conveying goods. These would be provided by the companies themselves.
This brings us to the question of fair tariffs, of fair freight rates, as well as a lot of questions affecting regional development. I know the minister is trying to tackle this aspect. I have been very critical of the government this afternoon but I should like to pay tribute to the minister. I do not agree with
March 2, 1977

him all the time. I know he has received some abuse this afternoon, and I am sure he has received abuse from his own colleagues from time to time. But he has devoted all his considerable mental powers to trying to rationalize the transportation system. I am not saying he has all the answers, but we have to give him credit for trying. For so long, successive governments have really been content to patch up the transportation system.
Where else is money available? I am sure that if I spent a few days, or a few weeks, looking over the transportation budget I could come up with lots more money. There is one example which comes to mind easily and which 1 see every week when I fly back to Toronto. It is the Five or six storey parking garage at Terminal Two. Someone has told me that this is costing $127.5 million, complete with infrastructure of roads and so on. That was just the initial cost, I was told; the final cost will be much higher than that. I think the minister would say it is costing only $40 million. I contend this is quite a large sum when we are thinking in terms of the $50 million mentioned by my hon. friend from Halton.
For too long this government and other governments before it have developed the air system in this country to the exclusion of all others. I agree that air travel is a force for national unity but we have the most highly subsidized, the most expensive airport system in the world. We built Mirabel. Mirabel, according to the minister, is the first airport which will be paid for by a revolving fund through user charges. I suppose this is the user-pay concept.
We have built Terminal One and Terminal Two in Toronto. I see the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) in his place. We have built a fantastic airport in Edmonton. I was there last year. My God, when people from Alberta talk about neglect on the part of the federal government they should go to Edmonton Airport and see what the federal government has done for them. It is scandalous the expenditure which has been made there. And I am sure it is not even needed. Now I hear there is going to be further expansion in Calgary. So there is money available. All that is required is a reallocation of priorities.
I only have three or four minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and I really did want to talk about the rail passenger system. It is particularly appropriate I should do so in the light of the announcement made by the minister in Vancouver this week. 1 was one who supported the former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, when he called for the creation of a public Canadian railway passenger corporation which would operate the services now operated by both railroads. I believe this is a forward step. I suppose that what the minister is proposing to do is to give directions to the Canadian Transport Commission to allow certain passenger services in this country to be phased out and replaced by limousines or bus services, the 80 per cent subsidy now paid under the National Transportation Act to be saved, and the money-I suppose it would be around $200 million a year-to form the basis of capital for the Via Canada system. I think there are good arguments in favour of this as long as we do not cut off services to the cities. It doesn't make
Report of Committee
any sense to run railway services to some of the smaller points in western Canada


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. I am particularly interested in seeing the rag-tag group across the way calling themselves government supporters. As some of them know, they have been invited to come down and witness for themselves the congestion affecting public transport in Toronto on Monday, March 14, and I sincerely hope that in addition to standing up in the House and guardedly criticizing the government they will turn up on Monday morning, March 14, and start making some of the statements they have been making here today to the press as to how incompetent the government has been with respect to urban transit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I personnally invite not only those members opposite but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to turn up and witness at first hand the congestion the government is leaving the commuter in the Toronto area to experience day in and day out. There are working people, the people who are paying the taxes which the federal treasury is mis-spending.
Perhaps I might continue later, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ralph Goodale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, following discussions this afternoon among representatives of all parties and, as well, with the independent member for Moncton (Mr. Jones), I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with the report tabled earlier today from the Special Committee appointed to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees. In the First instance, Mr. Speaker, I would seek consent to revert to motions, and I would then ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion seeking concurrence in that report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would then seek unanimous consent to move a motion.

March 2, 1977
Report of Committee


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to move a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: I should point out that my hon. friend from Halton-Wentworth had intended to second the motion, but I do not see him in the House at the moment.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane):
That the first report of the Special Committee appointed to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 3, 1977