1977-06-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Department of Fisheries and the Environment has not rehired approximately 50 per cent of the 163 river guardians employed on the salmon rivers in Newfoundland, resulting in the loss of 80 jobs. The increase in poaching on these rivers with fewer guardians will have a very serious effect on the salmon stocks in Newfoundland's rivers and makes a complete mockery of Canada's conservation measures. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House direct the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to authorize the immediate reinstatement of last year's allotment for river guardians in Newfoundland, and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), to move:
That this House, noting that the Minister of National Health and Welfare enjoyed a free flight in a Seagram's aircraft, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did the same in an aircraft owned by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and that the Minister of Transport has now flown free in a Nordair Aircraft so he could make a speech calling for the user to pay, is concerned over the conflict of interest involved in such flights, but is also of the view that all cabinet ministers should be treated equally, and this House therefore expresses the hope that some other private airline will offer a free trip
by air to all members of the cabinet, anywhere in the world they want to go, one way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Goodale said yes.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I wish to put a motion dealing with an urgent matter on which I am convinced the House will be unanimous.
As the sub-committee on our penitentiary system has done a terrific job in the last few months with a view to making concrete recommendations to improve our penal system, and as the report brought down by that sub-committee is a document of superior quality, which all hon. member will recognize, though unanimous consent may not have been reached on some of its recommendations, and moreover as this report is a unique example of the cooperation of hon. members of all political parties, devoid of partisan considerations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House warmly congratulate hon. members of the sub-committee on the penitentiary system for the magnificent task they performed by cooperating without partisan bias, and also for the outstanding report they tabled in the House yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1977
Flooding Skagit Valley

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning press reports today of an address by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in Hamilton on the subject of the government's user pay policy for transportation and particularly the statement attributed to the minister that, and I quote:
I would like to point out to you that it's the taxpayer who's the user. I am the employee doing the user's business and therefore obviously the user pays.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Transport make a statement to the House outlining on behalf of himself and the government all the reasons justifying his illogical and strange contention that the taxpayer is the user and should therefore pay for flights he makes, including those of a personal and political nature, and finally that the government give assurances to this House that at last steps will be taken to prevent forthwith such arrogant further gross misuse of public funds by the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same standing order, and I hope the same consideration will be given to my motion in terms of unanimity as that which was given to the hon. member's motion on the penitentiary matter. This motion has been canvassed by the four parties in the House.
In view of the decision of the Governor of the State of Washington reversing that state's position on the flooding of the Skagit Valley by the Seattle City Light Company, and in view of the position taken unanimously by this House and by the government of Canada on November 2, 1973 in opposition to the flooding of the Skagit Valley, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House reaffirms its unanimous decision taken on November 2, 1973 opposing any flooding of the Skagit Valley in the province of British Columbia by United States power authorities and that a copy of this motion be forwarded to the Governor of the State of Washington and the President of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the atmosphere here which has seen two Standing Order 43 motions passed today, 1 would like first to associate myself quite explicitly with the congratulations extended to the members of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system, who did an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In addition, in posing my question to the Solicitor General, I should like to congratulate the government for taking up our initiative to appoint a committee of inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In that same spirit might I ask the minister if he accepts the general recommendations made in the report, and if he shares the explicit view in the first recommendation of the report that a crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary system that can be met only by the implementation of large scale reforms?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I, of course, associate myself with the good words he addressed to all members of the parliamentary committee which of course was set up on my initiative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Nice try.


Francis Fox: On this side of the House the word "crisis" usually invokes concepts of both danger and opportunity. I think the report of the parliamentary committee indicates a great opportunity to continue to make changes that are necessary in the penitentiary system in Canada.
June 8, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Solicitor General did not go further and embrace the explicit recommendation of the report he has endorsed which called for immediate implementation of large scale reforms which is not the same as simply proposing to carry out changes that are already in place. Is it the intention of the government to respond to this report in the spirit that there is a need for immediate implementation of large scale reforms in the Canadian penitentiary service and system?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, unlike some members of the House I only received a copy of the report yesterday. I am in the process of examining the recommendations. On first reading of the recommendations, I see that the parliamentary committee endorses some of the very far-reaching reforms that have been initiated over the past year. I will just cite one instance: The committee endorses fully the extension of the living unit concept and the team concept throughout the penitentiary system. They have also indicated that they have complete confidence in the director we named to the Millhaven institution. That institution is also going onto the team concept. As far as the other recommendations are concerned, I take them most seriously indeed. It is my intention to review them and analyze them as completely as possible and make a response to the House on them.


ALLEGED ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP TO STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS OF SUBCOMMITTEE-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF MEMBERS OF GROUP
Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's parliamentary secretary is reported this morning as having said that a working group has already been established within the department to initiate recommendations that do not require legislation. Since one of the findings of the report was that some of the fault lies with existing management, and since there may well be some conflict if members of existing management were part of that working group, would the Solicitor General tell the House who the members of that working group are, what are they doing and when does he expect to receive a report for action from it?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we have been expecting this report in the department for some time and have been looking forward to it with a great deal of anticipation. In preparation for receiving the report we set in motion procedures to forward copies of it to all elements of the department, including those directors who met with the parliamentary committee and in whom the committee expressed confidence; it will also be directed to all senior management of the Canadian penitentiary service; and it will be discussed by the senior policy advisory committee of my department which includes the RCMP, the Parole Board and the penitentiary service. These bodies will make recommendations to me which I will evaluate. I expect the process to take approximately three weeks.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Solicitor General for his extemporaneous reply. Is there or is there not a working group? Should we believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General who says there is a working group, which is something other than a list for circulation of copies of the report, or do we accept the minister's response as being the totality of the situation? If there is a working group who is on it?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated that the report affects just about every phase of the operation of the criminal justice system both within my department and I suppose to a lesser extent within the Department of Justice. Recommendations are made for changes in the Criminal Code. As I indicated, the most senior people in my department, including the minister's parliamentary secretary, are involved in analysing the report and making recommendations to me. As I said previously, I want to move as quickly as possible on those recommendations which can be implemented without legislative change, and want to look closely at others. Clearly, we have already initiated changes in the penitentiary system in the past year.
My predecessor, as well, brought about a number of changes. Among the initiatives of my predecessor are the legislative changes presently before the House, as incorporated in Bill C-51. There are in particular changes concerning the procedure of due process for inmates appearing before the parole board. I conclude by saying we are taking most seriously the report brought down at the initiative of the government and are most interested, as are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada I am sure, in seeing greater reforms introduced into the penitentiary system of Canada.


RECOMMENDATION PRISON STAFF BECOME A PROFESSIONAL CORPS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One of the more important recommendations is the removal of the penitentiary staff from the Public Service Commission, and their integration into a professional corps of prison staff similar in nature to the RCMP. Will the minister tell the House when he will meet representatives of the PSAC to discuss the matter and, in addition, if he regards this step as central to the effective reform of our penitentiary system, as members of the subcommittee did?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the recommendation was made to me yesterday and has far-reaching consequences, as the hon. member knows. I should like to examine the recommendation in detail and consider its implications before making a statement either way on that proposal.

June 8, 1977
Oral Questions


PROPOSAL COMMITTEE BE GIVEN MANDATE TO REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
John Douglas Reynolds: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In its last recommendation, No. 65, the committee recommended that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should have a permanent reference during the rest of the 30th parliament and for the 31st parliament, to enable it to review the implementation of this report in the context of the criminal justice system. Since the committee worked on a non-partisan basis to make that report, will the minister assure the House he will make this recommendation to the government, and implement it as soon as possible?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to give that undertaking today. I am willing to look at the matter in greater detail. My initial reaction is this: the committee reported to me, and it then becomes my responsibility and that of the penitentiary system to implement such reforms as are appropriate in the circumstances. The parliamentary committee, or members of the justice committee, should have the opportunity to examine the implementation during the course of examination of estimates and supplementary estimates, parliament usually follows such a practice, instead of the type of innovative practice recommended.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What are you guys afraid of?


DATE WHEN LEGISLATION BASED ON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE INTRODUCED
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister and follow up his last answer concerning final recommendation No. 65 of the report, which asks for a continuing mandate during the 30th parliament and for the 31st parliament? Since the minister is apparently unwilling to commit himself at this point to the continuing mandate; since the report itself was an all-party, unanimous report; and since all members of the committee, of all parties, want to see the government act on the report, will the minister not say today when the government will introduce legislation in this House based on the recommendations of the report? The minister said he needs three weeks to evaluate the report. Surely he can say now if during the present session of parliament we can expect positive action on those recommendations?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee made an in depth analysis of problems associated with the running of Canada's penitentiaries. It took the parliamentary committee at least seven months to make those recommendations. Perhaps they can bear with me for a short time while I evaluate their recommendations, to determine which require legislative action in the House. In order to answer the last part of the hon. gentleman's question I would need to know how long the present session of parliament will last.


RECOMMENDED CHANGE IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Many matters raised in this report are not new. The Solicitor General and his predecessor must have been aware of difficulties within the prison system ever since many of us were elected in 1972. One problem raised was solitary confinement conditions in all maximum security institutions in Canada. The decision of Mr. Justice Heald of the Federal Court, when he looked at the situation in the British Columbia solitary confinement section, stated that it was cruel and inhuman punishment. Surely, the Solicitor General can now give some assurance to this House that at least the effect of the Federal Court decision in terms of the conditions under which people are held in solitary confinement will be expanded to the other maximum security institutions and we can civilize the conditions of solitary confinement in Canada. I would like the minister to give us some idea as to whether that recommendation has any immediate appeal to him.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I have glanced at the recommendations. There are a number that have immediate appeal to me. With regard to the ones the hon. member referred to, they are of a nature that do not require legislative change. I will examine, in a priority manner, all of the recommendations that do not require immediate legislative change, for example where changes can be effected in an administrative manner.


DATE OF CLOSING OF BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Penitentiary will have its hundredth anniversary next year. I might say the Solicitor General is invited to the celebration.


An hon. Member:: In solitary.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In any event, the Morrow report in the sixties called for the phasing out of all of those dungeons from the 19th century yet we still have them in operation in Canada. Can the minister now give some indication in terms of the B.C. Pen, and he may want to refer to other maximum security pens, as to a final closing date of this and other archaic institutions in Canada. I would like a commitment on when we will get rid of the pen in New Westminster.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a specific date as to when we will close down any institution in this country. I take it that the hon. member and the members of his committee, through one of the recommendations they made, support the governments accelerated construction program which will see the phasing out of some of these institutions over the next three to five years.
June 8, 1977



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
Mir. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate to the House and the people in the Atlantic provinces whether the $125 million transportation program for Atlantic Canada announced recently by him is contingent upon the assumption that the CTC recommends one daily train service from Halifax to Montreal and that other rail services be abandoned?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it does not prejudge the decisions and conduct of the CTC in connection with the overall issue. It did, however, have to work on certain assumptions about financing. Of course, we had before us a document which indicated a study sponsored by the five governments and which indicated the degree of savings which would be possible if that eventuality in fact took place.



SOURCE OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MILLION FOR ATLANTIC AREA PROGRAM

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: In addressing the railway transport committee meetings on this subject in Fredericton earlier this week, Premier Hatfield denied there were any contingencies with regard to the reduction of rail passenger service and the funds. However, the background paper released from the minister's office indicates quite clearly that savings of rail subsidies will be available for other transportation programs in the region. Will there be any new money coming into the Atlantic region or will this $125 million flow from subsidies, the loss of at and east rates, the reduction of wages, the reduction of train operating costs and the reduction of those four trains, Halifax-Sydney? Is that where the money is going to come from or is the $125 million new money?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what we did in looking at transportation in the Atlantic region was to identify certain areas where logical savings could be made without any detriment to the Atlantic provinces. That money was certainly identified for further investment in the Atlantic region. In addition, the agreement and the announcement of the total $125 million does include a great deal of new money for the Atlantic region. That is what made it so astonishing for me yesterday when this whole program was criticized by members of the opposition from the Atlantic area.


J. Michael Forrestall: I suggest that to clear up the fuzziness, the minister talk out of the middle of his mouth instead of both sides at once. I understand-I hope I am correct and perhaps the minister will advise me if I am not-that the $125 million is not entirely new money and that a substantial proportion of that sum will be realized through the savings arising out of the directive to the Transport Committee with respect to the
Oral Questions
establishment of a single passenger train service from the maritime provinces to Montreal.


Otto Emil Lang: I have always made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that there would be savings in other areas. For instance, when making the announcement I referred to the diversion of moneys which had been available for transport subsidies on freight where it is agreed by the five provinces that those particular subsidies were not aiding the development of the Atlantic provinces. That money would, indeed, be used in other ways. I repeat, some money was diverted but substantial sums of new money will be supplied. What should be clear to hon. members opposite, as it was clear to the premiers, is that the program we have proposed is very good for the Atlantic region in terms of total progress in spending money more effectively and adding more money for the general advantage and development of the region.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.


An hon. Member:: Speak up!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, if you cannot hear me over there, I can always speak louder. That is one thing I can always rely on-the same old chorus, the same old song, but no new ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the minister has something in common with everyone-he would like to see the amendments to the Criminal Code, or some of them, passed expeditiously. My question arises from the fact that the amendments to Bill C-51 would have the effect of undoing and sabotaging the good work done by the committee in reference to the ensur-ance of privacy and the fact that the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada as well as members of the criminal section of the Canadian Bar Association are opposing this sabotage. In these circumstances, may I ask whether the minister has seen the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada? Have they requested to see him, and has he refused to see them?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Answering the hon. member's question, for the moment, as a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, let me say I am not aware that they have requested such a meeting. If they have, I will check into the matter immediately. Naturally, if they want to see me I shall readily agree, as I did in the case of three groups, somewhat similar, with which I met last week-the Civil Liberties Union, the Defence Lawyers Association of Toronto

June 8, 1977
Oral Questions
and the Criminal Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice says he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Well, every Minister of Justice since confederation has been an honorary member; the hon. gentleman never got thege by election but only by appointment of the Prime Minister..In the light of the fact that the benchers of the Law Society are opposed to this amendment to the bill, will the minister now reconsider his position so that the measure can get through the committee expeditiously, as he is now urging should be done by recommending committee members to get on with the job?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I shall not comment on the preliminary part of the hon. member's question except to say I hope I do not detect a note of jealousy in his comment. 1 said 1 was not aware that the benchers had taken a position on Bill C-51. If they have, I would be happy to consider it and I would be happy to meet with them to discuss the matter.
The hon. member is asking me to reconsider my position on the bill. I think he will agree with me that in connection with all the bills, including this one, I have endeavoured to be as flexible and as accommodating as I can to legitimate and responsible representation. The hon. member has asked me to move from my position. I, of course, would ask him to reexamine carefully his position of unalterable opposition to determine whether there is not some common ground on which the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in the non-partisan way in which it usually operates, can report unanimously the bill which is before it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has said he will see the benchers. Well, they will be coming to town tomorrow and will be seeing me. Would he meet with them tomorrow? When he talks about being jealous, let me say I have never been jealous of anyone so uninformed.



TOURISM


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the government intends to follow the excellent suggestion made recently by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Spicer, that the government should pay a travel subsidy to Canadians to encourage travel in Canada instead of abroad since this would help improve the understanding between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians and would also reduce this country's $2 billion a year deficit on international travel as well as being of great assistance to the ailing tourist industry.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is aware-if not, I will send him the

information-of the program I announced in the House called Open House Canada. Under that program the travel costs of young people between the ages of 16 and 22 will be covered by the federal government to encourage them to visit across linguistic boundaries on an exchange basis. We will support that kind of exchange by paying transportation costs. We intend to evaluate the experience under this program and on the basis of that experience we shall consider extending it to other age categories and in other ways.


George Harris Hees: I was aware of the program the minister announced. However, as he knows, there are a great many people in this country over the age of 22 and it would benefit them very much if they could travel to French Canada and if people in French Canada could travel to other parts of the country on a similar basis. All this is obvious. Would the minister get on with the job and bring in a measure which I am sure would meet with universal support and do a great deal of good?


John (Moody) Roberts: We are getting on with the job. Our position is, in the first instance, to give priority to youth. But when 1 announced the program I indicated we were considering extending it to families. We do have in mind the extension of the program but I think it is a wise idea to see, first of all, what possible administrative difficulties might be encountered before going on to broaden its scope.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question has lost some of its tangyness due to the fact that I have tried to ask it two days in a row, but I shall proceed. I direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask the minister to advise the United States ambassador that thousands of Canadians are grateful that television networks in the United States began the jubilee broadcasts hours before Canadian networks paid their belated honours to Canada's Queen?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to doubt the factual content of the hon. member's question. Indeed, I would be very glad to pass that message along. While I am on my feet I may say that whoever the originators were-and I believe it was the British Broadcasting Corporation-I also ought to compliment them on one of the finest pieces of television coverage that I have seen in a long time.
June 8, 1977



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE-SUGGESTION BRITISH GOVERNMENT MADE MISTAKE IN BARRING PRESIDENT AMIN- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is reported today by Canadian Press that Canadian government officials in London have stated that the British government made a mistake in barring President Amin from attending the Commonwealth conference. Will the minister tell the House whether he shares this point of view and whether this is the point of view of external affairs?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who made any such utterance. I would be glad to look into it but this seems to me to be another little piece of the incredible fairy tale that surrounds this man at the present time. If I were asked to give a specific answer I would say that the British government took the only action it could under the circumstances.



GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ATTENDANCE OF PRESIDENT AMIN AT COMMONWEALTH GAMES

Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I thank the minister for his answer. Considering the strong protests which the minister has made against the violation of human rights in Uganda-and I refer particularly to statements in the external affairs committee on March 3 when he was advising the Prime Minister to have the whole question of human rights violations in Uganda put on the agenda of the Commonwealth conference-I ask the minister whether he will state that President Amin should not be allowed to attend the Commonwealth games in Edmonton in 1978?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I answer the hon. gentleman in this way, that strictly speaking, I suppose, as long as he is head of a Commonwealth country you probably could not have a direct bar against his attending on that ground. I have, however, inquired as to the degree of flexibility which is present in terms of the invitations that we are required to extend and I have determined that it is not necessary for us to invite President Amin, and I think it highly unlikely that we will do so.



NATURAL GAS-SUGGESTION NO NEED TO CURTAIL EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may 1 direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with a speech made to the Canadian Propane Association by Mr. Marshall Crowe, chairman of the National Energy Board, in which he indicated that while the National Energy Board has the authority to reduce our gas exports to
Oral Questions
the United States, he felt that the new gas being found in western Canada makes any reduction unnecessary and that, to quote his words, "it is unlikely that we would have to curtail gas exports in the next five years". I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this statement represents government policy, and does the government approve exporting 40 per cent of our gas production to the United States for at least the next five years?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that Mr. Crowe was authorized to make any statement on behalf of the government.



NATURAL GAS-PROPOSALS FOR RETAINING SURPLUS FOR DOMESTIC NEEDS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the National Energy Board also said that western Canadian gas producers are requesting temporary gas export authorization as a means of dealing with the prevailing gas surplus, and he added that "there is a possibility such applications might be favourably considered". In light of Canada's long-term energy needs and rising energy costs, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister two questions: first, whether the government will recommend to the National Energy Board that they refuse granting any short-term export permits, excepting, of course, in the case of any emergencies such as last winter; and secondly, whether the best course to follow in meeting the justifiable request of the gas producers who need to sell the gas they have discovered in order to obtain money to proceed with further exploration would be to use Petro-Canada to buy the gas in place so that it can be kept in the ground and made available to meet the long-term and future needs of the Canadian people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, these are interesting suggestions and representations on the part of the hon. gentleman. I will be happy to draw them to the attention of the minister and I hope he will reply later.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General of Canada. Undertakings have been given by the Prime Minister in the House regarding a statement to be made by the Solicitor General tomorrow in connection with the L'Agence de Presse Libre break-in which has been the subject of some discussion in this House. Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to make this statement tomorrow? I ask this in view of the fact that I understand he is scheduled to be a speaker on long-term incarceration for a period of two days. Has there been any

June 8, 1977
Oral Questions
change in the government's plans in connection with this statement?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have already indicated to the House, I do not believe I said any specific date. My answer was that I would try to make the statement as soon as possible after sentence was handed down by the judge and therefore the judicial process had come to an end. I think in fairness to all members of the House I should say it is my intention to make a statement the first day the House opens following handing down of the sentence by the judge in the affair at Montreal.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there is some anticipation in respect to that statement, would the Solicitor General tell the House whether or not he has any information from the Crown attorney in the area that there will be delay in the sentencing which is to take place. If so, what, if any, preliminary steps have to be taken between tomorrow and the sentencing? Can the Solicitor General assure the House that what we have taken as an undertaking that a statement will be made in the House of Commons means that a statement will in fact be made prior to the adjournment of the House?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the undertaking stands, but I will be making the statement as soon as sentence has been handed down by the trial court judge. I have no information as to when the sentence will be handed down by the trial court judge. My understanding, as I have indicated to the House, is that the Crown attorney and the attorneys for the defence will be making their pleas as to sentence tomorrow in court in Montreal. I understand also that it is normal practice-and perhaps some members of the opposition have more experience than I in these matters-sometimes for there to be some delay between the hearing of the pleas by the attorneys and the handing down of the sentence.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). In view of the fact that the government has gone to great pains to reassert that multiculturalism is a permanent government policy, would the minister inform the House whether complete co-ordination exists between his department and other government departments so that all multicultural objectives and goals become implemented as expediently as possible?


Hon. Joseph-Phillippe Guay (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe because he seems to be the only one who is really interested in multiculturalism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: On the opposite side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In spite of all the noise which you hear, I would like to know the stand his leader will take pertaining to multiculturalism.


Mr. Alexander:: Just answer the question, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will start with the minister.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, the extent of co-ordination depends on the degree of the involvement in multiculturalism by individual departments and agencies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who read the speech of another member the other day, should not have anything to say about my answer today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The multicultural activities of federal cultural agencies, which received a special mandate, are co-ordinated by an Inter-Agency Co-ordinating Committee chaired by the Assistant Under-Secretary of State.


George Harris Hees: Read it like it is written, Joe.


Walter David Baker: Smile, Stanley.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I would like to name the agencies which are represented on the committee. They are: National Library, Public Archives, National Museum of Man, National Film Board, CBC, CRTC, and the Multiculturalism Directorate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring back Haidasz!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: As far as other departments are concerned, co-ordination is assured by continuous liaison in the senior staff of the Department of the Secretary of State and my own department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 8, 1977



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last week the minister answered order paper question No. 1,979, wherein he reveals that the shuttle bus service between the parking lot and terminal building at Vancouver International Airport costs more than $500,000 per year. He also said that consideration is presently being given to the construction of a car park structure there, and when that happens the need for the shuttle bus service will be eliminated. I would like to ask the minister whether positive consideration is being given, at this time, and if so, what type of structure is being considered and what target date for commencement of the construction has been set?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we always have a positive view when we are giving consideration to any project. That is all the information I can give the hon. member at this time.


George Harris Hees: That is very reassuring, Otto!



INCOME TAX


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: 

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and is in the interest of preserving some law, order and decency, as well as the good name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its individual members in the province of New Brunswick. What disciplinary action, precaution or amendments to regulations does the minister intend to take as a result of statements purported to be made by a former RCMP officer with "J" Division in New Brunswick, who halted investigation into an alleged political party kickback scheme?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is presently an official investigation and a judicial inquiry under way in the province of New Brunswick into the allegation of a kickback scheme. Under the circumstances, I do not wish to make any comments on the matter, at this time.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General be prepared to make a statement following the inquiry?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, once the inquiry has run its course, I will be able to decide whether a statement on my part is indeed in order.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Monday, June 13, the House of Representatives in Washington will be voting on a report from the House Appropriations Committee requesting more funds for the continuing of the Garrison Diversion project in North Dakota which, if completed, will be harmful to Manitoba waters. Will the minister make immediate representations to Washington requesting that no further funds be granted until the final report of IJC is completed and presented this summer or next fall?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hearings to which the hon. member has referred. As the hon. member knows, there have been almost continuous ongoing discussions with the United States on this matter for some time. President Carter has indicated his views with regard to the situation. His views are very much supportive of the Canadian position. Whether anything additional is required before these hearings, I am not

June 8, 1977
Oral Questions
sure. I am inclined to doubt it. I think our position is very well known. I am happy to be meeting with the chairman of the IJC tomorrow and will be very glad to take it up with him at that time.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the House Appropriations Committee report states:
None of the funds provided for the project will affect Canadian waters.
This is not an accurate statement. I have information that the funds provided in the bill do concern project features which will affect Canadian waters, namely the Lonetree Reservoir project. Will the minister do everything possible to have the increased funding stopped? The United States is acting in very bad faith.



TRANSPORT


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement which the minister made to the farmers in Saskatchewan, that he would be in favour of railway rights of way reverting to the Crown once they are abandoned-an obvious change of heart since the Hall Commission-I would ask the minister if he would ask the cabinet and the government House leader if they would immediately call forth the bill which I put on the order paper last January to ensure, when passed, that the railway rights of way would revert to the Crown once they are abandoned.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that 1 have had no change of heart on the subject, although I did await my comments until I received the Hall report. We will be considering the necessary action to follow up on that recommendation. It may or may not require legislation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to a motion put in this House last week dealing with the insistence of the Hungarian government to disallow three Canadian youths, who are being held against their wills, to be reunited with their parents in Toronto, and realizing the fact that the government is aware of this case and has taken some steps, though ineffective, for the release of the children of Mr. and Mrs. Julius Geczi, could the minister now assure this House that he will demand publicly that the Hungarian government immediately release the Gezci children

in order that they may be reunited with their parents in Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the only possible exception I might take to the hon. member's question is whether I will make the demand publicly. I will certainly commit myself to taking every practical action we can take and those actions which I consider to be the most promising. I emphasize that, because the hon. member is aware that sometimes other than public declarations are more suitable in these matters. But 1 can assure the hon. member that we have the matter very much on our minds, that we have made representations already and I propose to make others and make them most vigorously in the most appropriate way.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the minister has said on Monday before the Canadian manufacturers that uncertainty in Quebec is hurting the Canadian economy, has the minister defined to what extent the dialogue of separation is causing increased unemployment and a business slow-down in Canada and in what areas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: It would be very difficult to assess this in purely quantitative terms. Certainly, in terms of a more general reaction, particularly from the business community, there is this element of uncertainty as a factor which is evident in their comments.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a referral to the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act with respect to Les Pistes de Courses Richelieu Inc., the Canadian Freightways Limited and the Collingwood Shipyards and Trailways of Canada Limited.
June 8, 1977


ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages copies of the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the task force report on Mirex to the joint Department of the Environment and Department of National Health and Welfare environmental contaminants committee.
I might say that the full report is not yet available in both official languages and that is why I cannot table it, but if hon. members are interested in existing technical copies in English, they are quite welcome to request them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in response to suggestions by a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. The conference concluded its work last week after a dialogue of 18 months. The conclusion saw many hours of intensive negotiations which have been widely reported in the press. I wish to give you my assessment of the results of the conference and their implications.
First, I want to make it clear that there was agreement on all sides that the conference contributed to a clearer understanding of the international economic situation and that its intensive discussions were useful to all participants. This point was explicitly recognized in the communique of the conference, and in fact such recognition was the key issue in determining whether or not there would be an agreed statement or report.
The conference was able to leave rhetoric behind and come to a balanced judgment that useful progress had been made. My reading of the world press leads me to believe that they have acknowledged the progress that has been made, and in fact any criticism that has been made of the outcome has been directed more at OPEC than at the performance of the developed countries.
There were, of course, disappointments. Developing countries were disappointed that some of their proposals for a structural reform of the international economic system were not met. 1 believe that such disappointment was inevitable in view of the wide-ranging structural change sought by developing countries over so many different areas. Developing countries did not agree among themselves on their demands and on their priorities. Some of the things that they were asking for
International Economic Conference were probably not within the powers of industrialized governments to grant. Among these were guarantees on the purchasing power of exports and a general debt moratorium.
One of the most difficult problems at the conference was getting the developing countries to agree to focus on a number of issues where progress was both important and feasible. The positions put forward by industrialized countries, including a $1 billion special action program, support for a common fund within an integrated program for commodities, and new commitments on official development assistance, constituted a significant improvement on positions of only a few months before.
Important agreements were also reached in the areas of energy availability and energy conservation, the transition to permanent and renewable sources of energy, food and agriculture, infrastructure in Africa, and several other trade and development issues. Real and substantive progress was registered during the final stages of CIEC which exceeds progress achieved at other international conferences dealing with north-south issues in recent years. Canada in particular received very warm appreciation from the developing countries for its decision to writeoff $254 million worth of debts to the poorest countries.
Of course the industrialized countries were disappointed at the failure of OPEC to agree on an arrangement for continuing consultations in the energy field. I am disappointed that no agreement could be reached on this point. 1 believe, as I have stated elsewhere, that the OPEC countries, the group of 19, were in error. They made a mistake in rejecting our invitation to continue a useful energy dialogue. This was an important objective sought by the developing countries at the conference.
At a certain stage the rejection of energy consultations might have threatened all of the conference, the benefits of which were to go mainly to poorer developing countries.
One cannot easily evaluate a conference such as the Conference on International Economic Co-operation in terms of success or failure. I personally have never expected unqualified success, nor could the developing countries admit to unqualified success even if it were achieved, if only to preserve their positions for future negotiations. I have always hoped for that measure of success which is defined by real progress on the main substantive issues at play, sufficient progress on international economic problems to make it worth while to continue to pursue a constructive dialogue between developed countries.
In the course of my negotiations with the co-chairmen from the developing countries extending back many months I made it clear that in my view the best that could come out of the conference was a number of concrete results that would be regarded as progress and that that would lay a foundation for continuing a non-confrontational dialogue between north and south in other international forums. I believe that that amount of progress has been achieved. It has been achieved because of the direct interaction of ministers in the final stages of the negotiations.
6428

June 8, 1977
International Economic Conference
I believe I should mention again that the negotiations in the three day ministerial conference or, as it turned out, in a four day plus ministerial conference, were conducted at the ministerial level. For example, the negotiations on the energy side on the part of the G8 were led by Mr. Vance. The negotiations on the integrated program were led, on the G8 side, by the British foreign secretary, Mr. Owen, and the Australian foreign secretary, Mr. Peacock, and on the other questions of debt and official development assistance, Mr. Roy Jenkins, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), and the Swedish foreign secretary, Madame Soder, were the leaders on our side.
The conference represented direct interaction between leading ministers on both sides, and I believe that a much deeper understanding has been achieved as a result of this particular ministerial negotiation. It achieved important advances in the positions of the industrialized countries in areas such as official development assistance, special action, a common fund, and mutual recognition of common problems in the energy sector. The dialogue will now be pursued in other international bodies because, as hon. members realize, the Conference on International Economic Co-operation terminated in Paris. It was intended to be a conference of one year's duration. It lasted for a year and a half, mainly because of the change of administration in the United States, but now it has terminated. I believe it provided a sound basis for work in other international bodies.
The complete results of the conference and its detailed agreements will receive careful study and will prompt follow up action in many areas, and later when the detailed agreements have been brought together, I hope to have them tabled in the House of Commons so that hon. members will have an opportunity to examine the range of issues which were discussed and the number of substantial agreements and disagreements which were registered in the course of the conference.
I believe that despite disagreements and despite failure to reach agreement on all fronts, the progress registered at CIEC justifies the continuing efforts of developed and developing countries to work out their problems in a spirit of co-operation and non-confrontation. I believe that the over-all result justifies the very considerable Canadian effort which was expended at this conference, an effort which I believe has reflected very favourably on Canada internationally.
I would like particularly to pay tribute to the Canadian delegation at the Conference on International Economic Cooperation. Throughout the conference, and especially during periods of enormous pressure and impending crisis, the Canadian team of officials performed superbly in managing the conference and Canada's relationships with its participants with great skill and dedication. In conclusion-and I hope this is listened to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson)-I believe it is important that Canada contin-

ue to play a leading role in the area of north-south relations in the post-CIEC period.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the minister for the arduous personal efforts he made in his role as chairman for the developed countries at the North-South Conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Even from a distance I could appreciate the intensity of the midnight consultations. I hope the minister will not accept my criticism of the results of the conference as any diminution of his evident dedication to closing the rich-poor gap in the world.
What counts, however, is results, and the results of the North-South Conference are dismal. I suppose the minister feels he has to put the best face on things, but the disappointing communique issued at the end of CIEC tells me that it is time to stop this charade of applying cosmetics to the relations between the developed and the developing nations, for more and more people on both sides of the development gap are cynical about elaborate postponements, glamorous diversions, and grandiose schemes.
The minister hesitates to characterize CIEC as either a success or a failure. One has the feeling that he defines success as the absence of total breakdown. While the plain word "failure" may be too jarring for the minister to bear, let us at least agree that the North-South Conference was an un-success.
The developing countries-whose interests, after all, were the focus of the conference-put it plainly in the communique as follows:
... Most of the proposals for structural changes in the international economic system and certain of the proposals for urgent actions on pressing problems have not been agreed upon. Therefore, the Group of 19 feels that the conclusions of CIEC fall short of the objectives envisaged for a comprehensive and equitable program of action designed to establish the New International Economic Order.
There is no getting around the fact that the final communique listed 21 points of disagreement, including a failure to solve the debt burden and purchasing power problems of the developing countries, which were two issues which lay at the heart of CIEC. The communique listed 20 points of agreement, including the $1 billion special action program and support for the common fund for commodities, but even here the nature of the common fund was thrown back to UNCTAD.
In his statement today the minister indicated that a clearer understanding of the issues was a major gain, but CIEC was designed for action, on the ground that the multiple conferences of the 1970's have provided the education base. The minister himself acknowledged this when he told the sub-committee on international development last March 30 that a failure at CIEC, or even an apparent failure, would be a serious set-back in the process of international co-operation.
No international group has provided a more balanced analysis and program than the Commonwealth Experts, who have
June 8, 1977

published three reports, the third one a month or two ago which called for urgent and imaginative action because prevailing growth rates will not reduce the income gap between the developed and the developing countries by the end of the century.
The government has clearly not learned enough about the cause of the rich-poor gap, or the minister would not give this House the superficial analaysis that it was the OPEC intransigence in refusing to enter into an energy dialogue that led to the CIEC disappointment. Nor would he ascribe the lack of agreement to the specious argument that guarantees on the purchasing power of exports and a general debt moratorium were beyond the powers of the industrialized countries.
The real reason that CIEC ended with a whimper was because the industrialized countries tried to buy world economic stability too cheaply. In the face of declining official development assistance, and developing countries' debts of $165 billion, the special action fund of $1 billion is a cruel joke. How can we expect the oil producing nations to co-operate with us in establishing energy prices so that we can plan ahead when we do not co-operate with the developing world in helping to rectify their trade imbalances and foreign exchange earnings? What the industrialized countries have yet to learn is that the time for rhetoric and cheap aid is past. Unrealistically low offers are not conducive to good bargaining.
Rather than glossing over these realities it would have been more useful if the minister had come into the House this afternoon and spoken in the same vein as the report on international development issued by the sub-committee, a unanimous report from all the parties in this House, which said that if the developing countries, and I quote:
... do not display a serious desire to reform the international economic system and if negotiations do not achieve tangible and significant progress toward that end, there is a grave danger of relations between rich countries and poor degenerating into a permanent condition of confrontation and recrimination.
Finally, what about Canada's role? We offered to write off $254 million in debts, which turns out to have a net cash effect of $35 million, and we are apparently going to make a contribution to the special action fund, although the minister avoided specifying any amount in his statement. 1 find it very curious that there were press reports of what the amount would be, but it is not contained in the statement. Well might we make a special contribution when official development assistance has declined from .58 to .51 per cent of GNP in the past two years-hardly the movement toward .7 per cent of GNP that Canada has promised.
I say to the minister and all the developed countries: Stop pointing the finger at others and look in the mirror. A remewed sense of commitment and urgency must permeate our approach-both as a government and a people.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had occasion to refer to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) as a hard-headed Scot. I was told afterwards that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-
International Economic Conference Eachen) asked: what about a soft-headed Scot? I now propose to address myself to that problem! Seriously, I want to say to the minister that we appreciate the statement he has made. I think I would echo the sentiments of all Canadians if I told him that we are proud of the fact that one of the most able ministers in the government was selected as co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Co-Operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure he represented this country in a manner of which we can be proud, and I am confident that a man of his compassion and integrity is admirably suited to discharging the duties he was asked to assume.
Listening to the minister's statement today one could not but be impressed by the fact that he was not happy about the outcome of the conference. Of course the minister is quite right when he suggest that no one conference and no one program will settle things between the industrial nations and the developing countries.
When the minister says in his statement that he hopes we can solve these problems by co-operation and not by confrontation, I think we have to be realistic enough to recognize that in the present world situation there is bound to be confrontation. How can there be anything else but confrontation in a world in which the industrialized nations have a steadily rising standard of living and in which the income gap between the wealthy nations and the developing countries is widening? It is widening because the developing countries depend very largely upon the export of raw materials to the industrialized nations. The price of raw materials in relation to the cost of industrial products has been steadily declining, and the standard of living per capita in developing nations is receding at a time when in spite of economic difficulties, standards of living are advancing in industrialized nations.
More than 100 years ago Abraham Lincoln said that no nation can long survive half slave and half free. This world has now become a global village; a nation cannot long survive in a world that is half full and half hungry. That is the problem that faces developing nations today and, as long as it continues, in spite of the rhetoric and in spite of all the. good will in the world, there will be confrontation until effective measures are taken to deal with these economic disparities.
In his statement the minister says:
Developing countries were disappointed that some of their proposals for structural reform of the international economic system were not met.
He goes on to say:
Some of the things which they were asking for are probably not within the powers of the governments to grant. Among these were guarantees on the purchasing power of exports and a general debt moratorium.
I am prepared to grant that no one nation can meet these requests for structural economic changes or for a general moratorium on debt, but certainly the industrialized nations together could achieve those goals. We have not really given very much of a lead in solving this request of the developing
8001 8 - 5 Vi

June 8, 1977
International Economic Conference countries which, it seems to me, is perfectly justified in wanting a guarantee on the purchasing power of exports. They find the value of the things they have to sell going down so they have to sell more and more sugar, copra and other raw materials in order to buy the same amount of manufactured goods and things that are essential for modern technology.
The industrialized nations find it very convenient at certain times to enter into commodity arrangements with one another. One of the commodity arrangements from which Canadians gained a good deal of benefit was the International Wheat Agreement, which unfortunately was scuttled. It guaranteed producers a fair price and it guaranteed the consumer countries a ceiling; the selling price fluctuated between those two levels and it was beneficial to both.
Over the last 15 years some of us have been urging the Canadian government to enter into a sugar agreement which would be of great benefit to Caribbean nations. When it was first suggested we were told the price of sugar was so high that it was a bad time to enter into an agreement with sugar producing countries; when the price dropped to 4-cents per pound we were told it was a bad time for an agreement because we could buy sugar much more cheaply than the floor price.
The fact is that we are now paying the price of the failure of the industrialized countries, including Canada, to investigate and proceed with commodity agreements and arrangements which would give to the developing countries at least a guaranteed minimum price for their products and would have some relationship to the cost of things they must buy from the industrialized nations.
The same is true with reference to debt. Of course I am glad, as all Canadians are, that the Canadian government decided to cancel $254 million worth of debt of the developing countries, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the real problem. 1 have seen figures which show that in some of the developing countries the amount of charges on their existing international debt is now greater than the foreign aid they receive. It may well be that if the industrialized countries want to establish a working realtionship with the developing countries, a great deal more of this debt will have to be wiped out. I do not say this in criticism of the minister; the minister could not control the policies of the industrialized nations. I think the western powers will have to recognize, however, that we are now paying the price of nearly 200 years of economic imperialism and that the developing countries still justifiably feel that they are being exploited by the industrialized nations.
I have the feeling that the proposals which were placed before this conference by the industrialized nations can be summed up in a simple phrase "too little too late" because we are working against time in trying to establish a suitable relationship between the north and the south.
I am sure all members are disappointed, as the minister is, by the failure on the part of OPEC countries to agree to a continuation of the dialogue. Frankly, the world is heading for

a disastrous situation in energy, particularly with respect to oil. By 1990 a great part of the western world will depend largely on oil from OPEC countries, and by the end of the century Saudi Arabia will probably be the only country left with oil for export. The danger is that in endeavouring to protect themselves against the possibility of curtailment of oil supplies, the highly developed nations will turn in on themselves and resort to measures which can only lead to further conflict and misunderstanding.
The minister said the conference has finished and its work will be carried on by other international organizations. That troubles me, for all these international organizations operate within their own limited parameters. The Conference on International Economic Co-Operation was valuable precisely because it took an over-all view and tried to make governments face the central problem, the widening gap between the incomes of the wealthy and the poorer nations of the world. I hope these other international organizations apply themselves to this task but am not optimistic about it.
I congratulate the minister on his contribution. If the conference was not the success he hoped it would be, it is not his fault. He made a genuine contribution and a worth while effort.
In closing I urge him, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), to do everything possible to make sure there is an ongoing dialogue between the rich and poor nations of the world. I say this, not from any ideology, but because we recognize that the maldistribution of income in the world can only lead to international conflict, and ongoing dialogue is not so much a matter of choice as a matter of human survival.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval);: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I wish to congratulate the minister for having completed his long and hard task, considering that the conference has lasted over eighteen months. Today he gave us his views on the work carried out and the limited success obtained but he stated at the same time that he was disappointed by that conference. Mr. Speaker, I think that if the minister seems disappointed today it is quite natural when two worlds meet, that is the underdeveloped and industrialized countries, it is evident that from the outset the latter will feel inferior and so quite suspicious.
When we read the minister's report this is what stands out from those debates. The minister referred to confrontations. I think that this is quite normal and even human since there are confrontations even between industrialized countries or members of the same government. We all recall that public confrontations took place in 1975 when Mr. Turner publicly held in check Mr. Gerin-Lajoie's decisions when the latter was president of CIDA. I believe such confrontations are necessary but they must be used to tackle problems in a spirit of co-operation, that is in a frank dialogue, and once in a while one should try to put oneself in the place of the other.
June 8, 1977

I feel that industrialized countries, and Canada is one of them, do not always put themselves in the place of the underdeveloped countries. When we say that underdeveloped countries have not responded to industrialized countries' proposals, I wonder, reading from this statement, whether the industrialized countries let the underdeveloped ones express themselves in the first place. It can happen that the stronger of the two might want to impose its own program, that is called the law of the fittest. The same thing happens even here on the federal level in respect of provinces. The federal sets its own program and then offers it to the other saying: Whether you like it or not. This is not dialogue but a laying down of conditions.
I believe the underdeveloped countries should have had the opportunity of an open door to make their propositions on an equal basis before another country took decisions. Indeed I feel that, although they are underdeveloped, these nations have their pride too. In this area of international trade, I believe that, because they are weak, these countries should not be expected to sell their resources at prices which are ridiculously low, while industrialized countries take advantage of the situation to sell them goods at prices which are often three times too high, if we compare the prices paid in underdeveloped countries with those paid in industrialized countries.
I suggest it would be interesting for the House to obtain more information. It is unfortunate that when we ask for information on these operations, we never can get them. When, for instance, CIDA spends something like SI billion of Canadian taxpayers' money, I think hon. members of the House are entitled to get explanations, to know how the money is being spent, and also to be advised of the reactions of the beneficiaries. When we ask questions, the government often replies: "It is impossible, it would take 10 years".
However, as reported in La Presse of June 1, which I think most hon. members have read, this leaves us wondering, particularly after a conference like this which did not generate all the success the minister was rightfully expecting.
The people of Haiti, for example, a country we have been helping for years, write things like this; I quote:


MILLIONS IN CANADIAN ASSISTANCE ENTIRELY WASTED
[Stage Direction]
"Canada is wasting its time and money in Haiti. The dozens of millions of dollars it is spending there under aid agreements are entirely wasted. It is like subsidizing a government made up of profiteers and incompetents who stay in power through lies and violence."
It is on this aspect of dialogue, Mr. Speaker, that I want to draw the attention of the minister to know how every individual country is using this Canadian aid. Is it used against Canada or against the population of those countries, as it happens to be the case now in Haiti as well as in other countries I could name? I am not surprised at all to see representatives of these countries coming to the conference and saying to industrialized countries: "Listen now, we are not
International Economic Conference going to go along with this anymore." This is why the conference, although it was quite a painful experience for the minister and for many others, will perhaps open new perspectives, encourage some hon. members to try to be better informed and above all induce this government to give us more concrete answers about what is happening to the $1 billion we put in CIDA, since it has been said that some Canadian citizens were paid to give out our money in Cadillacs in countries where people are starving.
Mr. Speaker, all these statements lead us to wonder whether this government has really paid all the necessary attention to this agency, which in fact is said to be another department. I think the minister did not keep a close check on the exorbitant and often unexplainable expenses of that agency. I have no intention to put the blame on CIDA but merely to draw those matters to the attention of the House and of the minister. It is not enough to say that we give $1 billion in assistance to underdeveloped countries. If we are to be blamed by the people who receive such assistance, we should keep our money and leave them alone. What do these countries want? They want technical and monetary assistance of course but they want to be free to decide on the kind of life which suits them, they want to have it their own ways in adapting the development of their industries to their way of life.
I do not believe that a Canadian could ever become a true African. He can only show them new methods, train them in electronics so they can improve their standard of living, produce more and achieve self-financing. The minister has good reasons to be disappointed but he should make the best of it for the coming conferences and try to establish a genuine dialogue. It takes two to have a dialogue and as long as both groups do not discuss frankly on an equal basis, we are bound to have this kind of disappointment.
Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification from the Chair. 1 thought the new procedure provided for a short question and answer period after a statement by a minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The new procedure does in fact provide for such a question and answer period at the discretion of the Chair as to whether it should take place and, if so, what duration it should be. The motivation for that adjustment to our procedures was to provide in certain circumstances a bit of a counterbalance by way of dialogue.
One of the disadvantages of the statement procedure was that the minister making a statement was met with three times the commentary from the opposition that he himself made. Therefore it was thought that by way of questions from the opposition afterward there would be some counterbalance by giving the minister an opportunity to answer such questions.
In a situation where I see no indication of a desire on the part of the opposition to put any questions, it seems to be a proper exercise of discretion by the Chair that no questions

June 8, 1977
Order Paper Questions
should follow. I recognize that if questions do follow and a member of the government party wishes to participate in the questioning, that member ought to be entitled to do so. I have recognized that in the past.-However, I do not think it would be a proper exercise of the discretion of the Chair to allow only questions from the government side, in the spirit of the adjustments made to the procedures.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on this point of order. I understand that members of the opposition are reluctant to address questions today because it is an allotted day. I should point out that my decision to make my statement today was to meet the request of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche), who will not be in the Elouse tomorrow or the next day. I was quite prepared to make my statement tomorrow so that hon. members would have a wide opportunity to ask questions and have them answered.
1 find it regrettable that a question of this magnitude has not been dealt with in the normal way. It may be useful to consider whether we should have a short question period on this subject tomorrow under motions, so that members on all sides might follow up the matter more fully.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the government House leader very much. I think that is a most commendable suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it can be understood as agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a suggestion that I am sure will be explored in the next 24 hours and probably exposed to greater clarity during that time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,465, 2,264 and 2,306.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the cost of translating technical documents in (a) the Department of Transport (b) the Department of National Defence (c) Air Canada for (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
2.	Is the translation of technical documents in (a) the Department of Transport (b) the Department of National Defence (c) Air Canada contracted out and, if so, what are the names and addresses of the firms presently holding such contracts?
3.	What was the total amount of each such contract and for how long arc the contracts?
4.	What was the translation cost per word in each contract?
(Mr. Speaker.)


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: It is difficult, in some cases, to distinguish between technical texts, scientific texts and other. To avoid any confusion, we shall consider as translation all the official languages translation done for a department. 1. Bureau operations are accounted for according to fiscal year. The answers given will therefore be for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Translation Bureau does not operate on a cost recovery basis. Therefore, for the translations done right in the Bureau, it is impossible to place a real cost on the services provided to a specific department. However, it is possible, using Bureau statistics, to calculate the average cost of translation per work and the number of words translated per department. (a) The estimated cost of official languages translation done for the Department of Transport is the following: (i) 1974-75: $520,000. (ii) 1975-76: $1,056,000. (b) The estimated cost of official languages translation done for National Defence is the following: (i) 1974-75: $2,465,000. (ii) 1975-76: $2,745,000. (c) Air Canada did not call upon the Bureau's services.
2.	The translation bureau contracted out certain translations for the departments in question. However, it is not customary to provide lists of approved contract translators or lists of contract translators who have provided services to a specific department, since such information might give the person receiving it an advantage over another present or potential contractor. In 1975, 42 different contract translator did official languages translations under contract for the Department of Transport, and 63 provided a similar service for National Defence. In 1976, the translation bureau awarded contracts to 31 contract translators for the Department of Transport, and to 49 for National Defence. No contracts were negotiated for Air Canada.
3.	The length of the contracts varied from one day to 21 months, while the costs varied between $4.80 and $13,545.60, although most of the contracts were carried out in less than two months and for sums amounting to less than $1,000.
4.	Depending on the relative difficulty of each of the texts contracted out for translation, the prices ranged between 5.5 cents ($0,055) and 8.0 cents ($0,080) a word.
The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Not applicable, (c) No technical documents were translated in 1975 and 1976.
2. (a) and (b) Not applicable, (c) Yes. Beginning in 1977. Sud Est Traduction, Hyeres, France and Technitrans, Montreal, Quebec.
3 and 4. It is Air Canada's policy to seek the best value available through competitive tenders and the airlines considers resultant prices, awards and terms confidential.
June 8, 1977

FUNDS TO "LE PATRIOTE" IN 1976/77


Mr. Herbert: What was the total amount of government funds contributed in (a) the 1976-77 fiscal year (b) previous years to la boite a chanson, Le Patriote, Montreal?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: Nil.
In so far as the Canada Council is concerned: Nil.


Mr. Fortin: Is there any programme designed to reduce to less than 90% foreign control of the automobile and oil industries and, if so, what is it?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Nil.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,356 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Text]


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	What are the names of all Crown corporations established by (a) Parliament (b) any other means?
2.	Do any have subsidiaries and, if so (a) which Crown corporations and what are the names of their subsidiaries (b) how are they related to the parent company?
3.	Is there any central authority, within the government, responsible for the operation of Crown corporations and, if so, what is it?
4.	Are any of the corporations listed in part 1 obligated to report annually to Parliament and (a) if so, what are their names (b) if not, what are their names and to what authority do they report?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transportation Policies MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 29 and 69 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Does anyone move on behalf of the hon. members concerned?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): And I had already nodded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of minutes of meetings, letters, telegrams, studies, etc., between the government, the Province of Newfoundland and/or the Municipal Councils, Chambers of Commerce, development associations or other interested organizations having to do with Rail Transportation in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Allard:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Order in Council authorizing the Canadian National Railways to acquire Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Limited.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-TRANSPORTATION POLICIES Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the transportation policies of this government have failed to meet the needs of urban and rural Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is similar to others moved on past occasions and I think this indicates the importance of the subject to hon. members and to people across Canada.
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
The transportation policies of the government are an important cause of regional disparity. I want to spend my time today supporting the concept of the so-called Crow rate and the concept of the "at and east" rates, and advocating an expansion of this concept to other areas.
In Western Canada, Mr. Justice Hall has just reported on a rail system which is at the very heart of prairie development. I realize it is difficult to take one mode of transport and say it constitutes the real problem with which an area is faced. So let us consider the question of user-pay as it applies to different modes.
In the area of civil aviation, infrastructure costs and their proportionate revenues as a return amount to something like 31 per cent over a 15-year period; these have risen by about 15 per cent to a point at which the user is now paying 31 per cent of aviation infrastructure costs. The cost picture as it applies to roads has remained relatively constant. Some 65 per cent of costs are paid in the form of various taxes imposed on users, taxes which are well known. We do not hear much about marine transportation, but in this sector users are paying approximately 20 per cent of costs. Users of railways, if we take capital and operating costs together, pay some 72 per cent. 1 hope this shows we should not isolate any particular mode when considering the user-pay proposition and that, as to railroads, we really have not been doing too badly, comparatively.
There is one vital part of railway grain operations which has not often been mentioned, that is, the turn-around time taken by grain cars. Normally the grain cars generate one way freight traffic every three weeks or so, sometimes once every month in winter. If we take a freight rate of 13 cents a bushel, a 2,000-bushel car would generate about $260 every trip. A 3,000-bushel car would generate approximately $400 per trip. If some way could be devised to shorten the turn-around time, if it could be reduced by half, the revenue earned by each of the grain cars would be doubled. This is an area in which much improvement could be made by the better utilization of our grain car fleet.
As I said, I should like to support the concept of the Crow rates and the "at and east" rates and ask for its extension. I should like to do this by, first of all, looking back on Canada's transportation history, and the reasoning behind it, in the hope that the minister will change his attitude.
If we look back, we find that the railways have been used as an instrument of national policy in the development of the wealth of this country, and that they have not been treated as economic entities on the basis of the user-pay concept. We can go right back to the very beginnings of our country when Upper and Lower Canada were divided by cultural and sectional differences. They had never been intended by nature to form separate economic systems because the St. Lawrence River was bound to unify the drainage basin economically.
There are, therefore, better reasons than the political union of 1841 for discussing the pre-confederation Canada as an economic entity. New York had challenged the St. Lawrence trade route, first by the Erie Canal and then by the railways.

Canada had countered, first by the canal system of the St. Lawrence built as a government project and, second, by the Grand Trunk Railway, relying heavily on government loans. Both these Canadian ventures failed to attract the trade of the American middle west, and ended in financial trouble.
To give some indication of the importance placed on transportation in the early days, I might remind the House that by 1866, if canals are included, government investments in transportation amounted to almost 60 per cent of the provincial and municipal debt.
The maritimes were stirred to link themselves to the continent behind them and their governments undertook ambitious railway programs as public works. By the eve of Confederation, transportation had overshadowed everything else in the budgets of the colonies and had seriously strained the public finance systems of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
After Confederation the prime policy was to provide east-west channels of trade, independent of the United States, by building a transcontinental railway wholly over Canadian territory. Such a railway would open the undeveloped lands of the west for settlement and fix the political and economic destiny of the area.
The public lands of the northwest were to be used by the Dominion to promote railway expansion and rapid settlement. Land grants would provide the greater part of the public assistance required by the railways. The railways, in turn, would make the lands valuable and a free homestead system would attract a rush of settlers.
The decisions to build an all-Canadian railway and to establish a vigorous Dominion land policy were basic national decisions which, together with the adoption of the protective tariff, which was soon to follow, fixed the pattern of subsequent economic development in the Dominion of Canada. The main features were railway land grants and the free homestead system. The half-hearted policy of building a national railway piecemeal as a public work was discarded, and in 1880 a group of capitalists agreed to undertake an all-Canadian railway to the Pacific as a private enterprise. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company was promised substantial cash subsidies and grants of western lands.
Surmounting great difficulties, the railway to the Pacific was completed in 1885. Land grants and cash subsidies stimulated great railway mileage and by 1896 there were over 16,000 miles of line-one mile for every 312 persons in the country.
Between 1896 and the start of World War I, the average of the prices of all Canadian exports increased 32 per cent. That of grains and flour increased 62 per cent, and the price of wheat at Liverpool increased 33 per cent. On the other hand, the average of the prices of Canadian imports rose only 24 per cent, and of manufactured goods 20 per cent in the same period. A development of probably more far-reaching significance was the phenomena! decline in ocean freight rates. In 1896 ocean rates were only about one half of what they had been during the 1870's.
June 8, 1977
[Stage Direction]
The great decline in transportation costs, the increase in the prices of cereals, and a relative cheapening of the factors which entered the costs of production, i.e. manufactured goods and imports in general, suddenly brought the virgin resources of the prairies within the scope of the international market and within the range of profitable exploitation. Capital and capital goods, the essential means for making exploitation possible, were cheaper than ever before. The prices of iron and steel, which largely determined the cost of railways and of the implements of production, were falling steadily in relation to the value of products of the farm. Interest rates were the lowest in recorded history, and the British investor was willing to lend overseas in unprecedented volume.
There was another set of circumstances in western Canada which made it available almost as soon as its attraction was felt, that is, the comparative uniformity of conditions, concentration on a single crop, and the ease with which transportation facilities could be provided and cultivation begun in a grassland terrain. There were no classifications of resources, no soil surveys, no climatic records to guide either the government or the unwary settler. The policies and methods of the Dominion were mainly designed to serve the national purpose of filling the northwest at once with as many people as possible.
The selection of land was left largely to chance and to the devices which colonization agents, railways, and land companies employed in their own immediate interests. The sectional survey, railway land grant schemes and pre-emptions illustrate a system designed for indiscriminate mass colonization. It worked with almost mechanical perfection.
Between 1896 and 1913 one million people moved into the three prairie provinces and the population increased from 7 per cent to 20 per cent of the total Dominion of Canada. The area of occupied land increased from about 10 million acres to 70 million acres, and the production of wheat from approximately 20 million bushels to over 200 million bushels. At the end of the period the value of agricultural production in western Canada reached a total of between S300 million to $400 million annually.
Looking back at the broad concept of Canadian transportation and the policy of national development, it was the unbounded optimism which led to the birth of the railway problem. The development of the northwest within so short a time brought prosperity and rapid economic expansion to the rest of Canada.
The settlement of the west took place within the framework of the national policies of all Canadian transportation and protective tariffs. The application of these policies directed the growing demands for capital equipment, for manufactuied goods, for distributive and commercial services in the Canadian channels, thus bringing expansion in other parts of the Dominion. Construction of the railways, deepening of the canals and improvement of the harbours necessary to transport the increasing volume of western grain over Canadian routes
Transportation Policies
stimulated economic activity in the east and gave it a large share in the moving of western products to the markets of the world. The building of towns and cities on the prairies, equipment required on the farms, and the consumption demands of the population required enlarged quantities of manufactured goods. The protective tariff enabled Canadian manufacturers to capture the greater share of the new market, thus giving a tremendous impetus to industrialization in Ontario and Quebec, to the coal and steel industries of Nova Scotia, and to the lumber industries of British Columbia.
The two national policies of all Canadian transportation and protective tariffs were closely related. The former made direct economic intercourse between the separate regions possible. The latter promoted east-west traffic, and under the stimulus of western expansion the two together produced a remarkable degree of interdependence among the widely scattered and diverse communities of which Canada is made up. So we have an economically loose transcontinental area transformed into a highly integrated national economy.
There were extensive costly duplications of railway trackage over long stretches of unproductive country. The optimism was pardonable in the days up to 1913. However, the burdens which it ultimately imposed on the federal government must be regarded as the cost of promoting the national purposes of development, national economic integration, and political unity. It may be true that many regional, provincial and local interests were served, but these were only incidental to the prosecution of larger purposes.
To attain the objectives of that costly policy it was necessary to secure a level of rates which would counteract the north-south pull of geography and, if possible, alternative routes to draw traffic over the east-west lines instead. Hence, the Dominion played an important part in shaping the railway rate structure by legislation, rulings of the railway committee, of the privy council, and of the board of railway commissioners.
The objectives of the Dominion appeared clearly in the Crowsnest Pass agreement of 1897. Under this agreement, Canadian Pacific Railway, in return for a subsidy for the construction of the Crowsnest Pass line, undertook to reduce rates on grain and flour moving from the prairies to the head of the lakes by three cents per hundred pounds, and to reduce the rates on a considerable list of settlers' household and building supplies moving westward from Fort William and points east by 10 per cent. The federal government made other agreements with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway in 1903 which stipulated "that the thru rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall at no time be greater via Canadian ports than via United States ports".
At the same time the eastern exports rates case in 1905 and the international rates case in 1907 resulted in a decrease of about 10 per cent in export rates from Ontario and in the merchandise class rates in eastern Canada. Also, the rates between the maritimes and central Canada were directly under the control of the Dominion through its operation of the Intercolonial Railroad. Because of the location of the line and
6436
[Stage Direction]
June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
the desire to promote traffic, the tolls were kept far below the level of profitable operation.
It is impossible to relate all the detailed effects of Dominion policy on the Canadian freight rate structure. Certainly the broad decline in the level of rates was accompanied by a narrowing of regional differentials. This, together with the special concessions to certain commodities, encouraged interregional trade and promoted the development of new areas, particularly in western Canada. All this led to a measure of prosperity in the central provinces that had not been seen since the 1850's. The highly specialized export production in western Canada and the decline in the competitive position of the small maritime manufacturers made Ontario and Quebec the manufacturing centre of the country. The growing volume of traffic from the prairie region moved over the railways, the waterways, and out through the ports of the central provinces. Banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies and other financial institutions in these older communities quickly extended their activities to the expanding west where they came to occupy virtually the whole field.
This commercial and industrial concentration was accompanied by rapid urbanization and the growth of metropolitan centres in central Canada. It was accompanied also by the rise of great national business organizations having their headquarters in Montreal and Toronto. Manufacturing, finance, and transportation seemed to be dominated by a few large corporations whose operations extended across the entire continent.
This period saw the development of a remarkable centralization in a country of such widely separated and varied regions. This should give us reason to think when we compare our transportation situation today with what we had when the country was developed. As I have said, the railways have never been dealt with as economic entities; the government has always treated them as instruments of national policy to build and to bind our country together and to give a service. This is really what the Hall Commission proposes, and I urge the government to give some assurance soon that the main thrust of Mr. Justice Hall's report will be accepted.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are living at a time when, according to all the experts, within the next five or ten years this country will be short of energy. We will find ourselves in a situation where we will have to import oil from South America or the Middle East, paying whatever is the international price at the time-money which we can ill afford. We ought to have begun to take steps to try to reduce our consumption of oil.
Unless we find ways to cut our consumption of oil we will have to import oil in increasing amounts as we run out of the oil we now have in Canada. There are a number of important steps which could be taken, particularly in the field of transportation policies which affect our cities and rural areas. None of these policies have been implemented, or even begun by this government under this minister. In his desire to win a majority, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a large number of election promises during the 1974 election. They were promises in connection with urban transportation which, if imple-

mented, would have had an advantageous effect on our cities and would have led to the saving of substantial amounts of gasoline. This gasoline is now being used by people in the cities, driving to and from work in their own automobiles.
I should like to quote from a report in the June 18, 1974, edition of the Montreal Gazette with reference to a speech made by the Prime Minister in Toronto on June 17. The article was written by George Radwanski, and it reads as follows:
A Liberal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made vehicles and 50 per cent for platforms and stations, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said here yesterday as he unveiled the second element of his transport policy for urban areas.
The program, to cost $275 million in the next five years, aims to "help cities to grow more harmoniously, to make cities people places rather than machine and building places," Trudeau told a noon-hour crowd of about 4,000 at the outdoor plaza of the Toronto-Dominion Centre.
Where the federal, provincial and municipal governments "agree a certain rapid system will benefit the people and is compatible with good urban planning," said Trudeau, a re-elected Liberal government would pick up its share of the tab.
It was estimated that the cost to the federal government would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million to $290 million. We have seen nothing of that promise.
According to the Globe and Mail, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was reported as saying the following in an interview on February 18, 1977, in Toronto:
The federal government's 1974 election promise of a national $290-million mass urban transit program is dead ... the program was killed because of spending restraints.
"The program that we contemplated in 1974 cannot be realized within the time frame of this parliament," he said.
This was said at a luncheon meeting between some federal cabinet ministers and the chairman and mayors of metropolitan Toronto. The article continues:
Asked about possible federal assistance for the Toronto Area Transit Authority's plans to expand the GO-transit system, Mr. Macdonald said Transport Minister Otto Lang would be making a decision on the matter shortly.
However, when asked whether the transit authority would get the 50 per cent subsidy it is seeking for a four-year, $ 150-million expansion and upgrading program, Mr. Macdonald said: "That kind of money just isn't available . .. (for commuter transit) in one region of Ontario."
In the next five to ten years we must encourage a sharp reduction in the use of the private automobile. Until we have a modern, efficient, rapid urban transit system in Canadian cities, we can expect Canadians to use their own cars to get to and from work.
I would like to illustrate what I mean by referring to the situation in the city of Ottawa. Since 1974 we have had two or three increases in the price of bus fares. In 1974 the price of a single fare was 25 cents. Today it is 50 cents for a single fare or five tickets for $2, which means 40 cents per trip if one buys five tickets at a time. The transit system in Ottawa is operating at a deficit, and there will be other increases unless the federal or provincial governments will provide a subsidy for the so-called losses of the bus system.
June 8, 1977

I would like to draw the minister's attention to what is happening in my city of Winnipeg where the provincial government has paid half of the losses of the transit system for the last number of years, and is paying for half the cost of new buses purchased by the Winnipeg Transit System. Even though that policy would seem to cost money, it will help to wean and encourage people to leave their own cars at home and use the public transit system, which is much less costly in terms of cost and much more efficient in the use of gasoline or diesel fuel necessary to move a customer from one place to another.
We have had a complete repudiation by the government of promises made in 1974 during the election campaign. These promises were listened to by the people of Canada, and particularly the people of urban Canada, as they elected Liberal members to office, which gave the government a majority. That is all I have to say with regard to the lack of policy by the government in terms of urban transit.
In July, 1973, at a time when we had a minority government and at a time when the Liberal government listened to people outside its own ranks, the four western premiers met in Calgary for what they called the Western Economics Opportunities Conference. There were three NDP premiers and a Conservative premier in attendance at that conference in Alberta. Despite the fact that they had, and still have, substantial differences in their political philosophies, they agreed on a large number of issues. One of the major agreements they reached was on some of the changes which were required in national transportation policies. They published a document outlining some of the things which they believed needed doing. I should like to put on the record some of the proposals they made, which were greeted with a good deal of interest and verbal support by the then minister of transport who said publicly, at the time or about that time, that the transportation system in this country was a mess.
Some of the proposals made by the western premiers were as follows:
National policy must recognize that an efficient and adequate transportation system, making the best use of all available modes of transportation, is essential for the economic and social well-being of Canada and its various regions. National transportation policy must recognize that competition at present acts unevenly between the various regions of Canada and between large and small users of transportation services. As a consequence, the development of the western region of Canada is inhibited by the lack of positive policy direction and the discrimination inherent in our present system of freight rates.
They asked for amendments to the National Transportation Act, something which has not been done. They said the following with regard to regional development:
To utilize cost information which will be available, a new approach to rail pricing is required which involves:
(a)	A federal contribution to the fixed and overhead costs of comparable proportions for all modes of transportation,
(b)	The establishment of a new rate-setting procedure which will promote the economic development of western Canada. This pricing policy is to be developed by the Western Transportation Evaluation Authority to be established immediately ...
Transportation Policies
Every effort must be made to ensure that local western industry is protected and that no part of western Canada is unduly disadvantaged by the implementation of a new pricing technique. This requires the completion of indepth impact studies before any new method becomes effective. Export rates must be protected and statutory grain rates maintained. The Western Transportation Evaluation Authority will co-ordinate the implementation of any new pricing technique.
When I reread that report today I found it sounded familiar. It seems to me that I had heard that same kind of thing from another source, and I so looked to the news stories that were written after Mr. Justice Hall issued his report, almost four years after the Western Economic Opportunities Conference made the recommendations from which I have quoted. Here is what Nick Hills reported, in dealing with the Hall Commission report in a news story which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 18, 1977. He said the following with reference to Mr. Justice Hall's report:
He has upheld the hallowed Crowsnest Pass freight rate and, indeed, says it should be expanded to cover all agricultural products exported out of this region.
He has said, like the western premiers in every political strife, that the raw materials should be processed here-and not in central Canada. He has inferred, again like the western premiers, that the railways engage in duplicity-for having settled the west originally, they now want to settle the future, again to their advantage.
Then Nick Hills said, and I want to draw this particularly to the attention of the Minister of Transport:
Mr. Justice Hall has gone almost all the way to meeting the arguments of the western premiers that the railways and Ottawa between them are the barriers to a new economic future, based on fairer tariff, tax and freight-rate policies.
In other words, what Mr. Justice Hall has done is in fact to repudiate all the policies which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has been following since he became the minister.
The directions in which we should go are clear, both in terms of urban transportation and rapid transit, in terms of commuter transportation such as the GO system and the kind of commuter service that they have had and will not have if the government permits the railways to increase the rates and discontinue the service that they have provided into the city of Montreal, and in terms of reorganization, rationalization, and planning of our rail system in western Canada.
I suggest to the minister that if the same kind of study as Mr. Justice Hall has done for western Canada were done in the maritimes, we would get the same kinds of recommendations to rationalize the system, to use the railways, to stop charging cost against the railways which are not calculated in the use of an airline buses or trucks. In other words, what Mr. Justice Hall has said, and what the western premiers were saying in 1973 is that what we need is a co-ordination of all our methods of transportation, of rails, buses, airlines, trucks and private passenger cars, so we get the most efficient use of all modes of transport so that the people will benefit, rather than one group as compared to another. We have not had that kind of thinking by the Minister of Transport and I do not believe we will have it. It is for that reason that I and my party support the motion before us today.
It is not too late. The minister can rethink his policies; he can begin to use the kind of broad policies advocated by the western premiers and by Mr. Justice Hall, and he can begin to
80018-6 Vt

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
give the kind of consideration to the transportation needs of this country which he has not given until now.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this is the second day of debate on transportation questions. Yesterday's subject was a fairly broad one dealing with transportation problems in Canada, particularly the Atlantic and western regions. Today's subject is even broader since the motion refers to transportation problems in Canada, urban and rural, and I am not sure whether that is meant to leave out anything or whether a portion of central Canada has been left out in the mix between the two motions. The extraordinary thing which anyone listening to the debate must observe, and which I wish had been widely observed, is the lack of real criticism or of substance in the comments we have heard up to this point in relation to broad government policy on transportation. Transportation is such a broad field, there are so many fronts on which we are moving and so many things happening, yet so few of them have been mentioned in the debate here.
We have heard from the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) comments on the history of transportation, which presumably demonstrates the urgency of the problems with which we are dealing. Besides that, he mentioned a number of fronts on which we are moving and, generally speaking, while he did not say so in words, he was endorsing the position taken on the fronts on which we are moving. He and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), broadly embracing the principles of the Hall Commission report, have certainly picked up where the government policy stands on this. Indeed I wonder if very often action has followed so swiftly on any document or commission report as has been the case with the Hall Commission report.
As hon. members know, almost within ten days of the receipt of the report, action was taken on the first and most important recommendation of the Hall Commission in regard to the transfer of 1813 additional miles of rail to the basic rail network. The following day I met with producer groups and others in Regina to outline to them the ideas which we had and on which we thought we could move forward rapidly in relation to the other recommendations of the Hall Commission report, some of which will take further consideration and deliberation over time.
I should say that the meeting in Regina was certainly a very receptive one in terms of the reactions and attitudes of those who attended. I note, for instance, a report in the Regina Leader-Post dated Saturday, May 28, in which Boyd Anderson of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities described the meeting as a positive effort to resolve complex issues. Ted Turner of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool praised fast government action to adopt the main recommendations of the report. He said, "Establishment of a prairie rail action committee ... is a necessary catalyst". Mr. Gordon Harrold of the Alberta Wheat Pool expressed surprise at how quickly the government had moved to implement the report. Mac Runci-man, president of United Grain Growers, was impressed that only ten days after the complex Hall report was tabled, the government was already acting.

A headline in the Western Producer read "Speedy Action on Hall Report Recommendations". A Free Press report from Winnipeg carried the headline "Lang Moves Quickly on Hall Proposals". Another story in the Manitoba Co-operator is headed "Lang Moves on Hall Report", and there is a subheading above it which states "Will Retain Crow Rates". That was dated June 2, 1977.
The Hall report was an important document. It was part of an ongoing series of actions which have been taking place in the prairie area to deal with the grain handling and transportation system, and in those main things we have the support of hon. members opposite. I will come back to some of those details just to put into context the nature of the Hall report. It builds upon what we are doing throughout this country in transportation and upon matters which are under way and which are very fast moving, about which hon. members opposite have little to say.
It is true that the hon. member for Winnipeg North referred to our urban transit program, and there again he broadly endorsed and supported what we said we wanted to do, what we intended to do, and what we had already done in part in terms of the commuter program and the commitment of money for that program and other urban transportation programs.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North was critical, and I understand that. His comments were legitimate opposition criticism of the fact that, to this point, our consideration of government restraint of spending has led us to delay implementing parts of what we wanted to do and what we said we intended to do. Therefore, again on a major policy question there is agreement except on the question of timing and on the question of spending money immediately. Of course an opposition can always be more ready to spend money in particular areas, but it reserves the right to criticize government spending as a whole.
What I want to do today is briefly touch on some of the matters hon. members opposite ignore when they criticize transportation policy. The very nature of the attacks and the debate demonstrate how much agreement there would have to be on where we are moving. It is true that yesterday some hon. members were critical of the moves which have been taking place in the Atlantic region in relation to a historic agreement reached between this government and the four Atlantic governments on how we should proceed to improve transportation in those provinces. It is worth noting that it is rather historic to get that kind of agreement on a variety of steps, including the transfer of money to support the movement of certain goods, money which ought to be spent in better ways to help the Atlantic region.
We ought to spend money to help with the shipment of goods and to pay the shipper rather than to apply it to a mode of shipment, so that the producer has a choice of shipment. We ought to examine very critically each form of our spending in transportation, and in the Atlantic region we reached an important agreement to add more money because of this
June 8, 1977

government's commitment to the development of the Atlantic region, where that development is so badly needed. However, we also considered the diversion of money which was spent in ways which were less efficient than was seen to be possible. Surely that is a principle which ought not to come under criticism from any sensible member who is trying to help this country grow and be more productive.
We created a commission in Newfoundland to pull together all the analyses of the many transportation problems facing that area, and the composition and the terms of reference of that commission were agreed upon with the government of Newfoundland. We do not share common partisan philosophy, but we are capable of agreeing with these governments and working with them when we are able to demonstrate, as we have in these cases, the good sense of the proposals and the benefit to Canada they have. I think hon. members should recognize that as a significant accomplishment.
It is true that in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick the issue of how to move the potatoes which come out of those areas is an extremely sensitive one, but again the setting up of a small work group to report quickly and effectively on this problem, and to pull together in a final way what has been done and studied in this area, has been warmly welcomed in those areas, and I look forward to its results.
On the other side of the country we have a similar kind of situation with British Columbia. There were years of grievances that the mainline ferries between the mainland and Vancouver Island were not receiving support when constitutional agreements for support had been arrived at with Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. This year we reached an agreement with the province of British Columbia whereby we will provide a form of assistance and support for an essential crossing connection, which would always find it difficult to pay its own way completely. That demonstrates what I have been saying constantly, and that is that while there is a general proposition that it ought to be recognized for the sake of productivity in Canada that costs ought to be reflected through a transportation system unless you have a very good reason why they ought not to be, there are these reasons for not doing so: remote areas, difficult access, and so forth.
However, as I said in Hamilton last week, hon. members should really observe-and hon. members in the Conservative party particularly-that it is practically impossible to support the market system without supporting the view that, by and large, transportation costs in relation to the doing of other things and the accomplishing of other objectives should be shown through to the people who choose one mode or another, as with shippers in the Atlantic region. Better that they who ship should choose whether they ship by rail, truck or water than that we as a government should use a bureaucratic approach to interpose particular subsidies and assistance which divert their choice from the most sensible and economic one for them to something else.
I know that Conservatives find it very easy to scoff at the particular words "user pay" because they like to lead people to fear that that means pay excessively. It does not. It means
Transportation Policies
being realistic about costs. It means we should have a sensible system which reflects costs, and that is a principle which is being broadly introduced in many ways. When we introduce that in the air mode of transportation, we are actually moving to answer some of the criticisms which have been at other times aimed at government policy for distorting in favour of one mode against another and, of course, our very principle is to move against that.
Simultaneously, in the air mode I ask hon. members opposite if they have any criticism about the increased consultation which has been instituted with the airlines and with the other users of services so that their views will be fully taken into consideration in future major developments all over this country in transportation, which had not been the policy of the past? It is the policy today, and it is another example of how the government has been moving in order to make transportation more responsive, more sensible, and more an instrument of productivity of a high form.
All across this country people are interested in rail passenger services, and here again surely hon. members opposite might have some comment on the view that in order for rail passenger service to become a potential significant contributor as a means of transportation again we have had to change the policy of the past under which rail passenger service was shortchanged. We have done so. We are committed to moving to 100 per cent subsidies between what passengers can pay and what is needed to provide a good and reasonable service, rather than leave the service on a declining basis because of a shortage of revenue to the railways. That, I hope, is a policy upon which hon. members opposite will finally comment.
What we have also had to do, however, is say to the CTC, as an instrument to examine these questions in all their local aspects and implications, that there are some services for which alternatives are clearly available where the passenger load factor is not adequate to justify the kind of expense to the taxpayer which would be required to maintain the service, and that in those cases the service ought not to be continued at those great expenses. That surely is a balanced and reasonable approach. It puts on the record that the government has come down on the side of future development of rail passenger service and on the side of the hope that it can gradually attract more passengers, demonstrate its usefulness, and indeed move toward self-sufficiency in its main areas, even though it will always need assistance in more remote areas. I would ask hon. members opposite to comment on that, and to have some regard for the taxpayer and government spending. Simply paying out money from the taxpayer does not mean that the cost has been avoided; the cost is real, and those who pretend it is avoided in that way simply miss the boat.
Our ports policy statement indicated a clear intention to move toward port commissions and decentralization of all functions which can be properly decentralized, into port regions. This will minimize bureaucracy at the centre, and I would have thought this would have been commented upon

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
and praised. Certainly those most concerned with ports have welcomed this move. They have been intimately associated with the developements taking place, and I think they will welcome the legislation which I hope will soon be introduced in this House. That broad principle of minimizing bureaucracy and decentralizing operations is being put forward very generally in our programs.
Hon. members spoke about transportation without mentioning many of the recent developments. WEOC was mentioned. I ask hon. members to remember WEOC and the claims for cost disclosure. This government has introduced cost disclosure legislation and, day by day or week by week, has been providing the provinces with the information they wanted about costs. This has laid to rest a good number of myths about a lot of cost matter where there was a fear that too many of the freight rates were ignoring costs and reality.
Bill C-33 which is before the House is likely to be delayed, because in addition to the many hours it has already taken on second reading I am told that many more will be required and so it may not be possible to get it through in this session. Some of the most important principles in that bill are the introduction of the western economic opportunities reply to the question of whether long-haul rates should be lower than short-haul rates, and the very important issue of whether some limits should be put on freight rates in a more realistic way than was done in 1967.
The railways do not like the maximum limits that would be imposed by Bill C-33 because they recognize that even those limits, which at the very beginning are fairly modest restraints, will cause the lowering of certain rail freight rates, particularly on those products where the railways say they are charging what the product can easily bear but which really means they are over-charging when the market can bear it. That is what Bill C-33 is meant to alter and if 1 had the co-operation of hon. members opposite we could move ahead rapidly in that regard.
I mentioned the Hall Report earlier. I could also mention the Snavely Report which dealt with the analysis of the cost of moving grain and indicated the problem of that cost being a great deal higher than the long established and often called sacred Crowsnest rate on grain.
That of course leads to a natural reference to the government proposition contained in the 1975 paper which Mr. Hall has endorsed and which provides if that rate is being prescribed which is below cost-and as a matter of policy that is being prescribed-then the government ought to pay the difference between that rate and the real cost. Certainly I have indicated desire to see that the railways have the required funds, following along the lines of the Hall recommendation, to get on with the upgrading of the rail branch lines which in the prairies is so badly needed. In the Regina meeting on May 28 I indicated that such was my intention.
Both the Hall and the Snavely reports deal with the important area of grain on the prairie provinces. Hon. members opposite did not mention the many othdr things that are being done to make that system work better. There is the purchase of 8,000 hopper cars which western members frequently refuse to

talk about because, if they did, they would have to praise the government; nor do they stop their colleagues from other parts of the country from sounding critical because the government spends that kind of money on a western problem. This is a sign of the disunity in the policies of that party, and it spreads disunity, and suspicion, and resentment across this country.
The Conservative party is guilty of preaching disunity and preaching different views in different parts of the country at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has the floor and all other hon. members will have their chance to speak. I am prepared to stay here until ten o'clock if necessary.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That should just about give me time to go through the list of things that the government has done and to detail them adequately for the edification of hon. members opposite. I was going to mention a few other things in relation to the Hall and Snavely recommendations in regard to the grain handling system on the prairies.
I might mention that we were able to achieve an agreement between the two railways that would eliminate back hauls, which for a long time have been the subject of criticism. That was mentioned at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that we are about ready for another conference of that sort. Certainly it would be a good thing to review matters and remind the west of how much has been done. He and his colleagues are so numerous in their negativisms that they often mislead people in the west about how much has been accomplished. Another conference would probably be a very good idea.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is about time to do it because the next election is coming up.


Otto Emil Lang: When the boxcars of the railways were falling into disrepair we introduced a special repair program for them, and we developed a new quota system which was attacked by both opposition parties as being destructive of old values. It is now recognized in the west as being absolutely necessary for the effective movement of grain as fast as the Wheat Board needs it. The block shipping system was a marvelous addition to the usefulness of our railway equipment by reducing turn around times.
We have the Manz Report on how cars should be allocated for grain. We have the trucking program which the Canadian Wheat Board was able to institute at our cost in order to ensure that damp grain could be dried. In every area we have been moving rapidly to improve our transportation system.
These are things which have been done from one end of the country to the other, and much of it has been done through agreement with the provinces of disparate political beliefs.
June 8, 1977

There is the Atlantic agreement, the Newfoundland agreement, the task force in relation to the potato problems of PEI and New Brunswick, the historic agreement on ferries with British Columbia ending that long-standing grievance, and the creation of standing committees on transportation with each of the regions of the country. These are demonstrations of the rapid action taken by the government in regard to transportation. The Hall Commission report is another example of how quickly we will pursue matters. It is true that the transportation needs of this country are being met effectively and sensitively. The opposition's lack of ability to comment on these many programs of action is the clearest demonstration of the government's achievements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice with some amusement the minister's comments about the unity of policy within the Conservative party. I wonder if the minister might comment about members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, one of whom is in the Chamber at the present time. During our deliberations in eastern Canada, each member categorically, as a matter of record, divorced himself from the minister's user-pay concept and said he would do so publicly and in the House of Commons. I wonder if the minister would like to reflect upon the unity of government policies within his own party. That seems to me to be more relevant than what the minister would like to postulate as a difference of opinion and analysis.
An. hon. Member: That is not true.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It is true and I can get the record to prove it. The record is clear on it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go back to sleep.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Stand up on a point of order and make the charge. It is true, and I can prove you are wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


Mr. Collenette:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) has made a serious charge about the conduct of members on my side of the House. The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), and the hon. member from Saint John-Lancaster served on the committee in the Atlantic provinces last week. To my knowledge, and I have not read the transcripts of the reports, none of us said any of the words the hon. member attributed to us in his speech. I ask him to withdraw those remarks, because they are unfair innuendoes.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. It is not unfair innuendo. It is actually accurate accusation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Put your seat on the line.
Transportation Policies


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I am speaking only factually, and will at the earliest opportunity present to the House of Commons such documentation as is necessary from the minutes of those committee meetings-


David Michael Collenette: Do it right now.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: They are not available. The hon. member knows they are not available, Mr. Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: I think they are.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: They have yet to be printed.


David Michael Collenette: How can the hon. member be so sure about this?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: As soon as the documentation is available, I will make it available to the hon. member and the House of Commons.


David Michael Collenette: Then do not make a charge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest a dispute is going on between two hon. members. The hon. member for Selkirk has the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


Mr. Landers:: Yes. Stick to your text.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak this afternoon on urban transportation. The minister spent most of his 20 minutes dealing with subjects other than urban transportation. On the shelves of this country's governments, federal, provincial and municipal, there are millions of dollars worth of studies concerning transportation, studies dealing with short and long-term plans for urban rapid transit, with systems which would provide intra-city transport facilities for industry, business and residents. It is important to consider the scope of the problem.
Apparently the minister avoided speaking substantively on urban transit. The fact remains that urban transit is of concern to the 75 per cent of Canadians living in our cities, the three largest being Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. One can think of ten other Canadian cities of substantial size. By the year 1990 at least 90 per cent of all Canadians will live in urban centres, something with which the minister neglected to deal. He did not tell the House the government's plans for urban transport. His own departments' demographic studies show that in future we shall see a concentration of industry, people and housing in our urban centres, which has serious implications for demand for land and infrastructure such as schools, recreational facilities and transport. We shall need not only a network of rapid transit; we shall need good roads as well. This concentration of Canadians in large urban centres also has implications with respect to energy costs, and the quality of the life of the citizens of those urban centres. As 1 say, 90 per cent of all Canadians by 1990 will live in large urban centres.

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
On March 4 this year I spoke in this House and used the term "crisis convergence". I said that in each of the areas I mentioned there is now a crisis or the potential for a crisis, and it is certain that in four or five years, or perhaps ten if we can postpone it that long, all the elements of crisis will converge together, to produce a crisis. Hence I used the term "crisis convergence".
To meet our difficulties, the government must produce a new, national urban policy. It should not be a piecemeal, fragmented or partial policy; it should be an all-encompassing, bold, imaginative transport policy for our cities, and we needed it yesterday, so to speak. It is certain we need it even more today.
The government cannot hide behind the classic question we have heard often: who has the jurisdictional and constitutional right in this field? Let us hear no more arguments as to whether the cities are the creatures of the provinces or if the federal government can deal directly with municipalities. These arguments are not good enough. They are but fiddling while Rome burns. Is it not ironic that city administrations are the last on the totem pole when it comes to acquiring finances, but first on the totem pole in provision of services for Canadians?
Good transportation in our cities is the underlying part of the infrastructure which can make life in our cities tolerable, which can allow Canadians to live in urban centres, or in the suburbs and travel to work. Only if you build a vast, rapid transit system in each city can people live in the suburbs and work in the city core. No matter if you talk of polycentric cities, or cities as we know them today with a central core area and outlying suburbs, rapid urban transit is necessary if the cities are to function. Indeed, what is a basic characteristic of successful cities in the world? Mr. Speaker, it is a modern, fast transit system.
Basic to this question is the government's list of priorities. As I said in the House on Monday night, the government has its priorities all screwed up. The minister said nothing to make me change my mind. If the government's priorities are what it says, it should do what it promised in the election campaign. I mentioned some of those election pledges on March 4 this year, and will repeat some of them.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made these promises on June 17, 1974. What are those pledges? I shall quote my own remarks on March 4, as reported on page 3673 of Hansard, as follows:
The Liberal government will pay 100 per cent of the cost of new commuter vehicles. The Liberal government will pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of all vehicles purchased. Financial support will be made available to encourage Canadian design and engineering. The Liberal government will offer assistance. Canadian industry will be encouraged to develop 'off the shelf standardized systems and equipment. The Liberal government will encourage urban transit systems. The Liberal government is committed to removing the 12 per cent sales tax. The Liberal government will offer the best use of existing railway rights of way. The Liberal government will rapidly implement the railway relocation act.
The government calls these pledges. They are not thoughts or whimsical ideas; they are a definite commitment to action, a commitment the Prime Minister made. And what has changed

between June 17, 1974, and the present? Why, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals won another election.
We in Canada urgently need mass, rapid transit for our cities. We must plan for the future, when 90 per cent of Canadians will live in our cities. That being so, I say those pledges are nothing but black, foul lies. Three months ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was in the city of Toronto, a city which critically needs a modern rapid transit system. He announced that the $190 million that had been promised and allocated for the development of a rapid transit system for Toronto was no longer available.
It is all well and good for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to stand in his place in this Chamber to tell us what he has accomplished. I know he works hard. I know there have been some accomplishments. I know that we do not sing the minister's praises often enough. Perhaps that gets him down. However, it is our responsibility to point out weaknesses, not to sing his praises. The minister was elected to act. His reward is that he has been elected. I hope the minister is not attempting to intimidate me from carrying out my responsibility and pointing out that nothing is being done in the area of urban transportation.
In addition, the minister has reneged on promises, pledges, and commitments. The government cannot make these kinds of retractions with little consequence. The results of this inaction and reneging will have serious repercussions in years to come.
I ask the minister to take seriously under advisement the task of resetting the priorities of his government. He should at least put on paper and begin to act on his commitment and priority to put in place a fast modern rapid transit system in at least the three largest cities in Canada, namely, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
Why does it make sense for us in Canada to put into action a rapid transit system? First, it is obvious that half of Canada's oil and gas consumption is used for intra-city transportation. If we were to have a mass rapid transit system in our Canadian cities, by 1985 we could cut that amount by 50 per cent. In other words, we could reduce the total consumption by 25 per cent. I realize the capital cost would be in the neighbourhood of $5 billion, but that investment would save 25 per cent of Canadian energy needs in eight to ten years. We can see the kinds of results that would have on our transfer payments, requirements of offshore oil, energy conservation, and balance of payments. It should be done if for no other reason than that it makes good economic sense.
Second, a mass rapid transit system in our Canadian cities would give us an opportunity to do something that we have already begun. We are already ahead of most of the world in our technological development of a massive rapid transit system. We have a corporation which has been doing extensive work, financed mostly by the province of Ontario, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation. We could export this technology. The world market in the next 20 years will be
June 8, 1977

in excess of $25 billion. However, the $5 billion required to put a mass rapid transit system in place in our Canadian cities would be a break-even cost even if we did not sell a nickel s worth offshore. It makes good sense that we talk about a mass rapid transit system for Canada because of the potential of the industrial development in the exporting of our technology, know-how, and the kinds of jobs it could mean for years to come.
Third, it makes good sense to look at transportation in the cities because of the effect it can have on the affordability of homes. Other members have pointed out that one cannot take a job if one cannot get from where he lives to where he works.
If the cost of a gallon of gasoline goes to $2 or $3 in the future, then with the high cost of housing it will be almost impossible for Canadians to own a home on the periphery of a city and drive some distance to their jobs. Even if they can buy a home, they will not be able to afford to drive to and from work. A mass rapid transit system would fill that need.
Fourth, if 90 per cent of all Canadians are going to live within our urban centres, we have to look at the quality of life ten, 15 or 20 years down the road. To a large degree the quality of life is contingent on the mobility that one has within a city. Can you get to the arena, the schools, downtown shopping, to a job, to the recreational facilities, to your friends across town, the zoo or the museums? If you are immobile, your quality of life is substantially less. Unless we have a modern transit system, that quality of life will suffer.
It is unfortunate that every city in Canada today is in debt as the result of its transit system. Not only do they have a capital debt, but they are unable to pay the interest. Every transit system in Canada that I know of is in the red.
I will use my city of Winnipeg as an example. Every year that city has a $1 million capital cost simply to replace buses. Every year it has an operational deficit of $19 million. The trend is away from our transit systems because they are awkward and cumbersome. In 1962, 44 per cent of those travelling in Winnipeg used the transit system. In 1971, our latest statistics-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in as many days, we are discussing a motion dealing with the government transportation policy. In both cases, Mr. Speaker, the motion was introduced by a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. I wonder whether it is because the Tories have realized that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is now experiencing difficulties and, like vultures, they are trying to snatch the prey for themselves
Transportation Policies
while he is in deep trouble, but that would not be gentlemanly behaviour. On the other hand, with heavenly inspiration, perhaps they have discovered that transportation is now facing some problems and they have decided to move two motions in a row to make up for their past neglect of the matter.
Whatever it may be, Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that the transportation policy of this government should be inadequate and fail to meet the needs and requirements of our vast country. The government cannot deny the fact, for it acknowledged it when it introduced Bill C-33 entitled:
An Act 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.
And today, the motion which is being debated reads as follows, and 1 quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the transportation policies of this government have failed to meet the needs of urban and rural Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Villeneuve, a riding in northwestern Quebec, which is far from large centres, I can certainly speak about the crucial importance of establishing a consistent transportation policy which would take the particular needs of remote areas into consideration. I would like to deal a few moments with the importance of having a coherent transportation policy in remote areas such as the area I have the honour to represent. Mr. Speaker, for some towns such as Val-d'Or, Chibougamau, Senneterre and Malartic, an efficient transportation system is a prerequisite to their development and to the survival of their people. It is absolutely necessary to improve the transportation system between northwestern Quebec and the large centres if this northwestern area is to pursue its development and if the area I represent is to continue its industrialization.
On several occasions last year, I have had the opportunity to be the spokesman for my fellow-countrymen with regard to problems of delayed freight transport between Montreal, Val-d'Or and Senneterre. I was then receiving a number of letters from merchants, manufacturers, businessmen, chambers of commerce and especially municipal councils. They were all bitterly complaining-and rightly so-about delays of several weeks between the time an item was put into the hands of the railways and the moment it arrived at its destination. It is clear that the economic life of northwest Quebec suffered many hardships.
It is regrettable that Bill C-33 does not deal with this important problem of exceedingly long delays between the moment an article is handed to the railway and the moment it arrives for delivery. The proposed legislation bears heavily on problems brought about by the rates levied by railway companies. The cost for transporting freight by railway certainly deserves our attention and I understand very well that the Canadian Transport Commission must see that shippers of freight pay reasonable rates.
Mr. Speaker, this is all the more necessary since there is no real competition in that area. If we want to prevent overly

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
blatant inequities, it is important that maximum rates be established and that the commission be in a position to determine whether the rates applied are reasonable or not. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this bill gives no explicit authority to the Canadian Transport Commission to judge whether there is a reasonable delay between the moment the railway company takes over the item and the moment the item reaches its destination. I therefore urge the minister to consider amending the end of his bill to include provisions to that effect. Shippers would be sure that the company would not accept overdue delays in shipments. I know for a fact that it is one of the major areas of concern for all those who have to use freight transport on a regular basis.
At that time I also asked repeatedly of the then Minister of Transport to consider reducing shipping delays. I can give a concrete example to show how much a transport policy which accounts for the particular needs of isolated areas can be important for the social and economic future of one region. Mr. Speaker, I did listen a moment ago to members discussing the transport problems they encounter in their own region.
As far as we in northwestern Quebec are concerned, if we dare ask either the department or the Canadian Transport Commission how it is that an area like ours where over 200,000 people live cannot have a better railway service, the answer those people can give us is, of course, that the railway and particularly the passenger service in that area are not viable. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to accept that answer. But what can be said about an area as remote as ours where the only two adequate means of transport at present are the plane or the automobile when one thinks that only going from Ottawa to the closest place in my riding takes just about 15 hours by railway. Those same people are telling us that it is not viable. Of course, and it is understandable that it is not viable.
When one thinks that today, in 1977, we can still travel with locomotives dating back to the years 1900-1925-and I know what I am talking about here because I had an opportunity to take the train from Cochrane, Ontario, to Rouyn with a transfer in Taschereau, and I had an opportunity, which might never re-occur, to board a train where the seats were made of wood. When I say that the minister cannot prove that such a means of transport is viable, I would ask him to try to shorten the time that we have to spend in those cars.
Mr. Speaker, hundreds of groups, organizations, citizens in my riding are now fighting for improvement. I know this does not come under federal jurisdiction but still I would like to mention it any way. I said earlier that we had only two means of transport-the plane and the automobile. I would like to talk here a bit about what I have been most concerned with for about two years, and that is the road from Montreal to Val-d'Or. Last year, before the provincial election, we managed to get all our local provincial members of parliament under one roof to fight for a better road. Everybody, all parties recognize that the highway is in a real mess. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this is an area, as I was saying, of provincial jurisdiction, but it is also an issue of transport policy which concerns
{Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).]
all those northwesterners who travel this highway. Mr. Speaker, the condition of the road is so bad that I do not even dare use my car to cover the distance to my constituency every weekend, for heavy trucks travelling from Val-d'Or to Montreal have been banned from this road for the past five years, and-


Mr. Demers:: Go and tell the PQ that this is a provincial responsibility!


Armand Caouette: That is what I said a while ago. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right when he says that this is a provincial responsibility, and I repeat, he is right.
But, if this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, why is it that in another field such as that of education the federal government interferes to finance teaching in the provinces? The federal government should be able to help financially the provinces whose budgets are insufficient to ensure the creation of a basic highway network to join outlying areas to the larger centres, especially in the area that I mentioned earlier, the one I represent in the House.
The federal government spends a lot of money for higher education even though this comes under provincial jurisdiction. In my opinion, it could just as easily offer credits or subsidies to the provinces to improve the highway networks when this becomes necessary. As I said some time ago, even if this comes under provincial jurisdiction, the increase in the price of gasoline, as the hon. member who has just spoken said, the oil price increase comes under federal jurisdiction. Yet, people in northwestern Quebec have to pay for this increase, even though they were not even consulted to see if they were prepared to pay more. I would ask the minister to consult his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to consider using the revenue generated by higher gas prices in northwestern Quebec to help the provincial government provide suitable roads for the people that I have the honour to represent, so that they may get where they want safely.
As concerns Highway 117, the provincial government has been saying for years that they do not have the money for repairs. Yet, the situation is terrible and greatly hinders the economic development of northwestern Quebec. Mr. Speaker, this is why I believe our national transportation policy cannot ignore this problem which is extremely important for the survival of northwestern Quebec.
I would therefore urge the Minister of Transport to consider meeting his provincial counterparts as soon as possible with a view to establishing some form of financial cooperation to improve the road system in the area. I am convinced that all the people in northwestern Quebec would be grateful to the Canadian government if this led to concrete results.
Mr. Speaker, in a somewhat different line of thought, I would like to refer to a problem submitted to me by Nordair aviation, a company serving my area. Nordair president Andre Lizotte wrote to me recently about a clause that was inserted in their operating licence by the Canadian Transport Commission. Under that condition, Nordair is prevented from providing a direct flight between Montreal and Val-d'Or only. The
June 8, 1977

flight must continue through to Matagami which means the plane cannot fly Montreal through Val-d Or and return.
The effect of that condition is that Nordair must cancel the flight when weather conditions are unfavourable between Montreal and Matagami. Even if there is perfect weather between Montreal and Val-d'Or, only Val-d Or passengers are prevented from taking that flight. That condition in Nordair's licence is unfair in my view and in the company s also. I feel that the Canadian Transport Commission, if they have the interests of northwestern Quebec residents at heart, must delete that condition and allow Nordair to use jets.
In fact, the only thing that prevents the company from using jets or faster planes is the fact that the Matagami airport cannot handle that type of plane. As a result, passengers on the Montreal-Val-d'Or line do without the comfort of jets merely because of that restriction written in on Nordair's permit. 1 trust the commission is willing to cancel that condition which deprives the people in northwestern Quebec from quality service in that field.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make at this point in the debate on the motion before the House today. As for the other airlines, I should merely like to ask the minister what is going on today with the discussions the Chibougamau people had with the former Minister of Transport, as well as the present minister, about the Chibougamau airport which, it will be remembered, we in northwestern Quebec, at the time of the 1974 election, when the then minister went about the area-


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, before 1 get into my remarks it is interesting to note that the motion before the House reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the transportation policies of this government have failed to meet the needs of urban and rural Canada.
This is a very serious charge indeed for the Conservative party to make, Mr. Speaker, yet at this hour they have but three members sitting in this Chamber. I am sorry, four. This is the party which brought this motion before us today, and there are only four or five of its members present in the Chamber. I consider that to be an absolute disgrace.


An hon. Member:: There is also one member behind the curtain.


David Michael Collenette: Can the people of Canada believe in the sincerity of this motion when the opposition cannot muster the required number of members to listen to the debate, no matter
Transportation Policies
which side is speaking? It indicates the great disarray which is evident on the other side.
Before getting into the basic meat of my remarks, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) made a very serious charge. Unfortunately he has left the Chamber and will not be able to hear my remarks. 1 find that to be quite discourteous on his part. He made the charge that hon. members who were in the Altantic region last week with the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers), and myself-were flatly opposed to the government's transportation policies, especially with reference to the user-pay concept. This is not true, and the record will show that none of the four members who were in the House at that time made those remarks. Before the hon. member for Selkirk makes any future charges, I think he should check his facts.
The eclectic nature of this motion is such that I can speak about any aspect of the transportation policy. The minister talked about a general transportation policy, the hon. member who introduced the motion talked about a transportation policy in the rural context, and the hon. member for Selkirk dealt extensively with urban transit. I do not want to repeat remarks I made on March 2 in this Chamber in regard to urban transit, although 1 will make a few references to what I said at that time. Along with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), I have been foremost on the government side in pressuring the government to come up somehow with some commitment in the field of urban and commuter transit.
The promises uttered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in June, 1974, were somewhat unrealistic. If you add up all the costs of the promises announced, the government would be virtually bankrupt if they were implemented within a short span of time. On March 2 in the House I made an argument to the effect that we must partly discharge our obligations in order to preserve some good faith and credibility with Canadians in the larger cities, especially in metropolitan Toronto.
The charge has been made that the government has done nothing in the field of urban commuter transit, and this is another falsehood uttered by the opposition. Grants were first made available by the government in the fiscal year 1972-73 for research and demonstration projects. About a year and a half ago the government announced a program of capital assistance for various commuter projects. The first grant under' this program was made available on April 1 of this year. The purpose of this program is to assist provincial and municipal authorities in designing and developing new technology, operations and innovations for urban transit. It was also to assist those authorities in the purchase of commuter vehicles and related facilities. The provisions of this program are manifold.
Under the Department of Transport Act, the Transportation Development Agency may enter into agreements with the 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

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
member of the steering committee. It is to monitor progress and provide advice and policy direction for urban commuter services. Grants are to be made to provinces and municipalities to assist in the purchase of commuter vehicles and related facilities. At the beginning of April this year this program covered about $100 million. This is simply not enough. I allude to the $290 million figure which has been referred to in the press and in the media over the last couple of years, which is the amount the government should be sinking into urban commuter transit.
In Toronto we have about $58 million of improvements which are required for the Union Station operation-80 per cent under the great separation program for the Bathurst Street bridge and a 50-50 split on the renovations of the Union Station. The minister is sympathetic to the government providing this assistance and is very sympathetic to the whole question of federal financial assistance to urban commuter transit. But the minister cannot live in a vacuum. He has to operate within the context of the cabinet and has to live within the severe financial restraints which the cabinet has imposed upon him over the last year. They have taken a very commendable approach in terms of government restraint. Contrary to what the hon. member for Selkirk said, the Prime Minister has not closed the door to any federal financial assistance to urban commuter transit. I am sure some aid will be forthcoming in the near future.
I should like to talk about the government's transportation policy in the urban corridor between Windsor and Quebec City, which is the most populated section of this country and is a section which could support a high development of mass transit services, specifically rail. Hon. members in the Chamber who know me and know what I have said in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications over the last few years, are aware of the fact that I am very partial to the enhancement of passenger rail services, especially where they can pay their way in the urban corridor. The government has started to change its thinking and has started to make an effort to upgrade passenger-rail services in the corridor. Unfortunately the government has to do a somersault and completely change its thinking over the past 25 years, which has emphasized the development of air services in this country. I should say that is to the government's credit, because air services in this country have done a lot for Canadian unity.
Last week when returning from the maritimes I flew Air Canada from Halifax to Toronto. Within two hours I was transported from a very distinctive region of Canada, which is isolated in many respects, to the heart of Toronto. This was the result of very fast, efficient air service. Air services have brought the country together. Canada is second to none in the world in the development of air facilities. Perhaps we have been a bit too generous in the amount of money we have made available, especially for airport terminals. I am thinking of the expansion of the Toronto airport, Dorval, and now Mirabel. I understand there is also expansion under way in Edmonton. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), if he is paying attention, would be most interested in hearing that. I
[Mr. Collenette.l
believe we spent a lot of money in Calgary as well on improving their air terminal.
Having established these terminals, having established this high quality of air service, I think it is incumbent upon the government, especially at a time when energy shortages are quite apparent, that we must develop more energy efficient forms of transportation. In the urban areas, in the highly populated corridor, rail is the only answer. As a result of the over emphasis on air, rail service has deteriorated in the corridor, as it has deteriorated across the rest of the country. But air services themselves in the corridor do not necessarily make money, and the best figures that I could get from Air Canada show that in the last few years they have been losing around $10 a seat on their service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, which anyone in the Chamber who travels the route would find quite astounding considering the amount of patronage given to the air service in that corridor. But it is purely a question of economics.
To put planes up in the air between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is very costly, and it is the long-haul passengers from the west and from the east who, for many years, have subsidized the travel of intercity passengers in the corridor region from Quebec to Windsor, and especially in the Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto region. It is my contention that the government should be doing even more to upgrade rail services, increase speeds and general efficiency, and computerize reservations for passenger rail service in the corridor.
The minister has announced a couple of programs which will help to achieve that end. One is the $30 million capital assistance program for new equipment which, I understand, initially was to be used in the Quebec, Montreal service, but which apparently will be used for the purchase of equipment throughout the corridor. The second is the introduction of a 100 per cent subsidy, the rationalization of non-profitable services, and in general the bringing together of the subsidy money that the government pays for passenger rail service now and putting it into services that have some form of commercial viability.
At the same time that the government is doing this, I am quite worried that it is perhaps undoing a lot of the good work that it has set out to do. I refer specifically to the proposed development of a STOL service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. I think the government should do a lot of soulsearching about its equity position in de Havilland aircraft in Toronto and in encouraging STOL service in the corridor region.
As we know, the government owns about 80 per cent of de Havilland. Of course it wants to sell these planes but until now it has not been able to do so. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) said in the finance committee recently that we only have a firm commitment for the sale of one Dash-7, and the reason we cannot sell the planes is that we do not have purchasers in Canada. I suppose the thinking of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is that if
June 8, 1977

we do have a full fledged service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal using the Dash-7, this will encourage foreign buyers.
The Dash-7 is a very good plane. I understand it has some energy limitations and it is quite expensive, but it is good for use in the maritimes, in the rural communities, or in the outports in Newfoundland. It could be used, I am sure, on the west coast of B.C., and could perhaps help to phase out some of the high costs of operating a ferry service on the west coast. The Twin Otter is used by Nordair in northern Ontario, and I understand the province of Ontario wants to set up another service in northwestern Ontario. This is how the Dash-7 and the Twin Otter can best be used. They should not be used for commuter type service from a city downtown to another city downtown, because if the STOL service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal is allowed to operate from the Toronto Island airport, it will cut into the potential patronage of the rail services, this at a time when, as I have explained, the government is trying to upgrade passenger rail services in the corridor.
As far as I am concerned, a businessman travelling between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal-his ticket is always paid by expense account-should have no option. He should just be able to go to the international airport and take the conventional jet service and pay for that privilege. I do not particularly want to make it easier for businessmen to travel between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal if it means that we will take away a potential source of revenue for railways, because rail does not serve the businessman on a business account, it serves the ordinary wage earner, the person who cannot afford to travel by plane between Montreal and Toronto.
The train is very versatile. You can have one coach with a dining car facility with all manner of food and beverage service for which the businessman can pay, and you can have the coach and other forms of accommodation which are considerably cheaper. Therefore rail is a much more popular mode of transit.
Secondly, and this is a more parochial issue because I represent a constituency in the east end of Toronto, if the STOL service is to operate out of the island airport we will not be bothered too much by the noise. I am sure the two constituencies to the south represented by members of the New Democratic Party would have more noise from an increase in the traffic flow to the Toronto Island airport. What concerns me is that, representing as I do a constituency which is not a particularly wealthy one, the average working men and women cannot afford to travel outside of the city by car or bus to cottages but seek their recreation on Toronto Island.
Anyone in the House who knows Toronto very well knows that Toronto Island parks have become very crowded over the past few years, and to increase air traffic at the island airport would mean the building of parking facilities and a bridge over the western gap. A bridge under it would be difficult to build since boats use the principal channel. It would mean also the development of a great infrastructure for the island airport. This would destroy the recreational compenent of Toronto Island which is so dear to the people of metropolitan Toronto.
Transportation Policies
I can see that my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), who is a great proponent of STOL service, does not agree with my sentiments. I do not disagree with regional STOL services operating out of the island airport to small points such as Bruce County, Parry Sound or Peterborough, using Twin Otters, but what I do object to is a mass movement of people by Dash-7, which seats 50 passengers, between the major cities because I see that this is merely an attempt by government officials-I say government officials because I want to draw the distinction between government officials and ministers who, I am not sure, are fully aware of the implications of the development of a STOL service on the Toronto Island-of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Transport to bail themselves out of the difficulties, such as the whole question arising out of the expansion of the Toronto International Airport at Malton.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, with only ten minutes left I am afraid I had to deny the hon. member more time. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) suggested that nobody from the government side in the Transport Committee was willing to oppose the user pay concept. Had he been in his seat at the time the statement was made he would have heard it loud and clear, and I submit that the silence of other Liberal members on that committee at that moment, and the applause of other members from the House of Commons, gave assent to the statement that they did not support the user pay concept, so the caucus opposite is somewhat divided. The hon. member should not have accused the hon. gentleman from Selkirk as he did.
The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) covered a great deal of the ground I wanted to cover. Time prohibits me from covering all the ground I would like to cover, but I commend that speech to the minister. I ask him to read it because therein lies the fault Canadians are finding with the transportation structure of Canada. Individual lines are not serviced, roads are not good enough, air service is regulated to a degree which is ridiculous in certain areas, and that is also the case in the Atlantic area. I submit that if the transport system in the Atlantic area had been as good as the minister implied in his remarks, then the Transport Committee of the House of Commons would have flown by public carrier and would not have used a government plane to take its members from place to place. With the existing air schedules in Atlantic Canada, had they resorted to public carriers, they would have spent their time in airplanes and airports, and would have had little time to consider the interests of the public in the transportation field.
The minister referred to Bill C-33. If I am not mistaken, it was introduced on March 1, and when it was introduced the

June 8, 1977
Transportation Policies
minister was not here to introduce it. The subject has not been addressed as yet by the minister. It was debated three or four days in the House, and then it disappeared from sight.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is true that I was unavoidably absent when the bill was introduced, and I was grateful to the acting minister for delivering the speech I would have delivered had I been here. However, I think it is quite unfair for the hon. member to imply that I have not taken an opportunity to speak since, because the rules of the House very clearly would only allow me to speak as the mover of the motion once all other speakers who wished to participate had done so, and it is clear-from all indications there are many hon. members opposite who are ready to filibuster that important bill-that that would be a long time from now.


Fred Alward McCain: That bill disappeared from sight on March 7, and the government has not seen fit to bring it to the surface since. To blame the opposition for the disappearance of that bill from public consideration is grossly unfair, and the public is asking why it happened. It conflicts with the budget, the supplementary estimates and other business of the House which, by government standards, have higher priority. As evidenced by this week's conduct of the House, the government does not know what to bring forward, and Bill C-33 could have come forward on a dozen occasions.
I wish there were time to cover the whole matter, but there is one thing which has to be clarified completely. This House has been led to believe-by statements emanating if not from the minister at least from his department-that there was a deal made between the premiers of the Atlantic area and the Department of Transport whereby in lieu of $125 million there would be a trade-off in passenger service. At the CTC hearings in Fredericton Premier Richard Hatfield of New Brunswick said that the four Atlantic provinces did not make any agreement with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to trade off the federal aid to rail services in order to get $ 125 million in highway and airport improvements.
This morning Premier Campbell stated that no agreement had been reached between the four Atlantic premiers and the Minister of Transport. He said the offer was inadequate. He also stated that Premier Moores agreed with his remarks of that day and that they were looking for a better deal. Premier Campbell also stated this morning, "We are meeting every two weeks and getting nowhere". Negotiations which the minister referred to in the Atlantic area have not been able to make progress virtually since the day they were established because the Government of Canada, through its successive ministers of transport, has chosen to exert the force of its size upon the minute sections of Canada and has imposed upon them restrictions, regulations, and deprivations which are not in any way merited.
Let us consider this $125 million for airports and roads. The highway budget of the province of New Brunswick for 1976-77 was $123 million. For 1977-78 the estimate is $145.2 million. Over a three-year period the province of New Brunswick could therefore look forward to receiving 5.5 per cent of its highways budget, if it was lucky, out of the $125 million offered by the Government of Canada.
All this is done in the name of austerity, but in spite of advice to the contrary and in spite of the need for austerity at that time, Mirabel was built. In spite of the need for austerity in the present budget year, a $200 million skyscraper is being built in the city of Montreal. Added to that expenditure the announcement of some other project in Montreal was made, I suppose in an effort to return a member from Verdun. Austerity is an excuse when it is required, and expenditure is a policital weapon to bribe the public when it is in the best interest of the government. So the minister should not throw austerity at us again, and he should not say that austerity is in any way restricting the efforts of the Department of Transport.
While we were in the Atlantic area we received complaints about our ports, those under the Harbours Board and those which are not. We also received complaints about the rates for the transportation of goods within the Atlantic area as compared with the rates in British Columbia. When wood products are transported by the same railroad in B.C. the cost is 60 per cent less than that charged in the province of New Brunswick. We were told that if there was an emergency in Bathurst, we would have to drive either to Montreal or to Toronto, or charter a private plane, because the transportation system of Canada would not provide emergency service.
We were told that air freight was inadequate, that space was not available, and that when air freight parcels were moved into the province of New Brunswick, they were moved by truck from Moncton to Saint John and to the airport, and they could be picked up two days later, with luck. As suggested by the hon. member for Villeneuve, the minister has not been getting down to the nitty-gritty of transport. He does not understand what is going on.
There is only one solution to the problem of having proper port service in Canada so that transportation can be used as an instrument of development and that is service. The Atlantic area requires $100 million to $150 million to be spent on its ports. Rails in Atlantic Canada require improvement, just as they do across Canada. The Conservative party believes that transportation is an instrument of development, and excuses are not adequate.


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


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon during my speech the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) challenged some comments I made with respect to certain comments made in the Transport Committee on Tuesday, May 31, in Saint John, New Brunswick. I told him I would undertake, as I am doing right now on

June 8, 1977

a point of order, to quote from the Minutes of that meeting, which read as follows:-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 suggest to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) that this is not a point of order, but a matter for debate.
Transportation Policies
With the conclusion of this debate proceedings on the motion before the House have expired pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11). It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to the order made Monday, May 30, 1977.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Thursday, June 9, 1977