1977-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of an attempt by the CBC to conjure up the spirit of the departed Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, not knowing whether that exercise was attempted at the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or whether it was an attempt by that Crown corporation to bring itself once again into the good graces of the Liberal party. In either event I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House urge the CBC to cease and desist from further such attempts, believing that this country is in sufficient danger from the ghastly mismanagement of the presentfadministration without compounding the problem by obtaining the ghostly advice of the Prime Minister's unlamented predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the recent tabling of the Badgley Commission report criticizing the operation of the abortion law in Canada and the lack of family planning facilities, in view of the statistics in that report that necessary abortion is- unavailable to a wide cross-section of women, particularly those of low income, less educated and residing in rural areas, and in view of Badgley's further report that one
out of five Canadian women still find it necessary to leave this country to obtain a necessary therapeutic abortion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That:
(1)	this government forthwith bring in legislation following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women that the Criminal Code be amended to permit abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy or less to be performed by any qualified physician in consultation with his patient and,
(2)	that the freeze in family planning spcitding be ended and substantial additional funds be provided in family planning area.


Mr. Speaker:: Linder the provisions of Standing Order 43 the motion can be put only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRE TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the growing problem of mercury pollution, which is national in scope, and in view of the growing number of individuals with confirmed elevated blood levels of mercury and the health hazard thereby created, and in view of the absence of long term planning on the part of the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That the recommendation of Dr. T. W. Clarkson, Professor and Director of the Medical School of the University of Rochester as outlined in his interim report mentioned in this House on May 7, 1976 entitled "Exposure to methyl mercury in Grassy Narrows and While Dog Reserves" calling for the establishment of a national centre in environmental health to deal with environmental health hazards from methyl mercury and other pollutants now be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
3658

March 4, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Acting Prime Minister received information from any U.S. government organization through any channel divulging the names of Canadian companies or persons or foreigners with whom the Canadian government has dealt internationally and, if so, will the hon. gentleman reveal those names to the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: No,
Mr. Speaker, we have not received any such names. If the hon. member is referring to the investigation which is being conducted in the United States by the Securities Exchange Commission into Boeing, we have asked for information through diplomatic channels but we have not yet received any information.


POSSIBLE USE OF AGENTS IN PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that in any deals or negotiations between the United States aircraft companies on the one hand and the Canadian government, or the Department of Supply and Services, or the Department of National Defence, or the Ministry of Transport, or Air Canada on the other, no use was made of commission agents either Canadian or foreign by the Canadian government or by any of its departments or Crown corporations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On
that point, I have no knowledge with respect to the use of any commission agents in connection with these transactions. It is a question which is important but not directly related to the Securities Exchange investigation about which we are attempting to secure information. Of course, there would be no difficulty in attempting to secure information on the point that the hon. member raises, but I have no way of adding strength to the suggestion, nor would I wish to add any strength to the suggestion, that agents have been used.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister knowledge of the names of

commission agents or consultants in other countries who have been involved when Canada has made large defence purchases or sales abroad?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have had no indication of the names. Purchases are made through the normal channels as contracted by the Department of Supply and Services. In this particular situation tenders have been recalled from both Douglas and Boeing in the normal manner, directly with the aircraft manufacturers.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Once the names of the alleged 18 individuals or corporations-these are the 18 names that the SEC is attempting to obtain and release publicly in the United States-are known to the government, would the government release those names here in Canada, if they are not released elsewhere, so that we and the Canadian public can be assured that no Canadian department or agency has had business dealings with those organizations or people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member is referring to the 18 names which the court has already undertaken to make public. The information, therefore, is of course public and will be made available to hon. members.


ALLEGED PAY-OFFS BY BOEING-POSSIBILITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO LIBERAL PARTY-NATURE OF INVESTIGATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the undertaking given by the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday at a press conference that he is looking into the possibility that Boeing may have made a financial contribution, or financial contributions, to the Liberal Party of Canada at the time contracts between Boeing, DND and Air Canada were being considered or negotiated, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this investigation is being made directly with Boeing, or is it being made through the Liberal Party of Canada offices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have read what the Prime Minister said at the press conference, that he might look into this subject, but I have nothing to add to what he has said.
March 4, 1977


BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, and without wanting to prejudice your rulings subsequently today, this being the forty-fourth birthday of Your Honour I should like on behalf of all members of the House to extend our congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear! Speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Needless to say I am grateful for the kind expression of sentiment, but the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby still only gets three questions!


John Edward Broadbent: Again without further prejudicing Your Honour's decision, I might add that not only is the early forties an appropriate age for Speakers, but being neither too young nor too old to be exquisitely appropriate for Prime Ministers as well!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Following questions in the House yesterday, has the government checked with AECL officials regarding their explanation of the contention by the vice-president of the Korea Electric Corporation that no agent was involved in the purchase of a reactor from AECL by Korea; and related to that, has the government decided to suspend any further payments to Mr. Shaul Eisenberg?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, AECL has reported very great difficulty in comprehending the comments which have been made by the vice-president of the Korea Electric Company. While the present vice-president does business with AECL, he was not in place at the time these particular transactions were in play, and it is obvious that there is considerable difference of opinion between AECL and the reported statements made by the vice-president of the Korea Electric Company on a number of points, including the question of an agent, because I am informed by AECL that during the negotiation period from 1973 to 1975, both in Canada and in Korea, AECL and the Korea Electric Company met in the presence of the agent, so that obviously his existence was known and obviously felt by the Korea Electric Company.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the relevant question presumably is not whether Mr. Eisenberg may or may not have been present at a particular meeting, but rather what
Oral Questions
precise functions he performed, was there just use made of certain offices for the making of telephone calls on an essentially flimsy basis? Is that the kind of involvement, or was he acting in a significant way which would in any sense justify the millions of dollars which were paid out to him? That seems to me to be the kind of inquiry which has to be made.
Related to that I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister another question. Following the statement attributed to the vice-president of that corporation, which was reported in the Toronto Star yesterday, has the government instructed the Canadian ambassador in Korea to get in touch with the gentleman involved and to get directly from him his views as to the precise nature of the role of Mr. Eisenberg in this transaction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, as the hon. member knows, officials of AECL have appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on the negotiations with respect to the Korean sale.


Miss MacDonald:: That was a joke.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They placed before the committee statements and documents showing in detail, as I understand it, the part played by the agent, and that is evidence which was put before the committee by AECL. Members of the committee will have to assess the weight of that evidence when they make their report to the House of Commons, but the evidence was there indicating that the agent was active in this situation for a number of years. That is the situation.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Acting Prime Minister about the accuracy of the claims made by AECL. That is precisely what is being called into question by the statement of the vice-president of the Korea Electric Company, so the evidence the committee has had to consider has been presented in this instance by only one of the parties involved.
This is an important matter, and to understate it considerably it has the smell of scandal which has surrounded the role of agents, not only in this transaction but in others. Does the Acting Prime Minister not think it appropriate that the Canadian ambassador get in touch with this senior representative of the company in Korea and get directly from him his view of what took place? That question is in part related to the answer given by the Solicitor General yesterday regarding the limited role the RCMP can play in such investigations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from whether it is a good idea for the Canadian ambassador to speak to the vice-president of the Korea Electric Company and to ask him whether what he is reported to have said is still his view, there are quite a number of elements of inaccuracy which can be detected in the reported statement made by the vice-president of the Korea Electric Company, one of which is that his company had never done any business with Eisenberg. It is well known that Eisenberg has had business dealings with Korea Electric on a number of major non-nuclear projects. I
3660

March 4, 1977
Oral Questions
am saying that the hon. member ought to assess the credibility of the vice-president in light of other known facts relating to his statement.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister in the light of his answer, in the light of the many facts brought out with respect to the involvement of Crown corporations in kickbacks, the conflicts of evidence, and the difficulties encountered by the public accounts committee, one of the best functioning committees of the House of Commons, if it is not now time to undertake an independent judicial inquiry so that witnesses may be examined under oath, documents examined and the whole mess which we have been discussing looked into? There has been stonewalling. I do not say that the minister, personally, has been stonewalling, but we are not receiving answers. A judicial inquiry would allow names to be cleared, and the good name of Canada to be cleared as well. Innuendoes against people in Canada have been raised. Their names could be cleared. If they are not innocent, the proper process of law could be undertaken.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when this issue first developed, the request of the opposition was that we should ask the public accounts committee to deal with the question. We provided a reference, which in our view was capable of permitting the public accounts committee to examine the question. The public accounts committee has not reported yet. I agree with the hon. member that it is a well-functioning committee. I believe it would be a mistake at this point to sidestep parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner:: Otto sidesteps parliament every day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would be a mistake to sidestep parliament.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Good grief!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Sidestepping the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham is something I would not care to recommend.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if anybody can give a stonewalling, cover-up answer better than the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Paproski:: He is the king of stonewallers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure others agree with me when I suggest that the minister is very capable in that regard. Let me preface my supplementary question with a comment that I

think the committee is doing an excellent job, but the rules governing committees do not allow it to sort out the facts. The Acting Prime Minister this morning suggested that there are weaknesses, that one person said this and another said that. If we are to institute a judicial inquiry, witnesses could be examined under oath. The inquiry could be like the crime commission in Quebec, which was able to get at the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation. Naturally, questions which relate to any matter which is before a standing committee always give the Chair difficulty. However, my general stance has been that particular information on detail is more in the hands of the parties than in the hands of the Chair. Therefore, if it is to be suggested that the matter ought not to be dealt with because it conflicts with the proceedings of the committee, that suggestion ought to come from the floor rather than from the Chair. However, on occasion there are representations with respect to questions which really ought to relate to the report of the committee, so that the House can be seized of the matter and take action. I think we may be entering that area now.


AIR CANADA
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? Yesterday, in the House, as reported on page 3603 of Hansard, the minister spoke about "upon hearing the allegations", and also said:
... if there appeared to be any connection between the allegations and .. . Air Canada.
Does this mean that the government knows the details of the allegations contained in the Security Exchange Commission request for information from Boeing?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. The particular allegation was in relation to the various phrases used in the press about the possibility of wrongdoing.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The Minister of Communications, the Prime Minister and other ministers have been critical of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees in Quebec, alleging that they have committed offences detrimental to the unity of Canada. Have any of these
March 4, 1977

ministers given the names to the minister responsible for CBC of those against whom allegations have been made in general?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 must reply that I have no knowledge of such being the case.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 must accept the minister's word because of the regard I have always had for him. But does he not read the press? I ask him, therefore, have none of these ministers given him a list of the names of those against whom the allegations are made by those who, in the finest spirit of McCarthyism, cast a slur to those CBC employees in Quebec who are innocent.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I share an equally strong respect for the right hon. gentleman as he has expressed for me, so I will not comment on the second part of the question. In relation to the first part, my answer is that no such list has been given to me.


ALLEGATIONS OF SEPARATIST BIAS IN RADIO-CANADA- PROPOSED MONITORING OF PROGRAMS BY RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Since the Prime Minister mentioned at his press conference yesterday that he had discussions with the minister, has the minister made a decision to discuss this matter with the chairman of CRTC to see if CRTC under its authority would undertake a monitoring policy to substantiate, if possible, the allegations made against the CBC?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my first reply will be to correct what the right hon. member for Prince Albert said a while ago when he asked his question, namely that the Minister of Communications had publicly criticized the CBC. I must point out that I did not publicly criticize the CBC but as a minister I discussed those matters with the authorities concerned. As for the doubts and concerns now voiced in the press and elsewhere as to the way the CBC is fulfilling its role which is to remain objective and promote national unity, I think that even the CBC will reach the conclusion that it is probably necessary to obtain some outside judgment on those very serious doubts.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Since the minister answered my question in two parts I should like to ask whether I am correct in understanding that she has instructed the chairman of CRTC to undertake an independent audit of the alleged bias with which CBC has been charged?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think we will soon be taking a decision on the procedure we should be following to deal with those doubts and concerns now voiced among the public. The
Oral Questions
CBC cannot carry out its role in a climate of doubts and suspicions.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF CONNAUGHT LABORATORY TO SUPPLY GAMMAGLOBULIN TO MALTA
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the negative attitude of Connaught Laboratory to an urgent request of the government of Malta for 60 vials of human gamma globulin desperately needed in Malta, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare use his office to make available a supply of this biological to a fellow member of the Commonwealth?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will investigate this matter immediately, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for having drawn this matter to my attention.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: 
SUGGESTED TESTING OF RESIDENTS IN ARCTIC FOR MERCURY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister have his department

March 4, 1977
Oral Questions
carry out extensive testing of all residents in Arctic communities to determine how widespread the mercury contamination is, and also will he tell the Elouse what remedial action is contemplated by the federal government for those already affected? 1 am thinking of selenium fortified diets for northern residents?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, those investigations have been under way for six months already and as soon as we receive reports we make them public, as I did yesterday. We expect to have to continue those investigations on Indian reservations both in the Arctic and outside, and all the information gathered will be made public and given to the people concerned. Among the actions which are to be taken, additional inquiries will be made to determine the source of contamination. Furthermore, the diet of people affected will have to be examined to establish whether it is necessary to encourage them to change their eating habits and to decide what other measures are necessary.
I must point out that current investigations are made among the groups we believe are more subject to contamination than others, because they work as fishermen or hunters rather than labourers in other concerns or fields.


MERCURY LEVELS IN RESIDENTS OF RUPERT HOUSE AND GREAT WHALE AREAS-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous question addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As indicated by the previous questioner, recent reports have revealed the presence of elevated mercury levels in the Northwest Territories. However, I should like to ask the minister if he is aware of recent reports from the areas of Rupert House and Great Whale that allegedly reveal the highest level of mercury contamination in Canada? If so, will he reveal the details to the House?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, all reports available to my department concerning mercury contamination will be made public as soon as we get them and referred to those concerned. I will look into those specific cases to which the hon. member refers to see whether studies are now finished. But instructions are that all these studies are to be made public as soon as they are available.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH CENTRE TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION [DOT]


John Robert Holmes: I have one brief supplementary question. In light of the minister's last answer, which again indicates that there is lack of co-ordination in dealing with the whole matter of mercury pollution, can the minister now say if he is prepared to implement the recommendation of

Dr. Clarkson calling for the establishment of a national centre in environmental health to deal with environmental health hazards from methyl mercury and other pollutants?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the whole problem of industrial health is a matter which we have discussed with my colleague, the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has already made some announcements concerning the whole matter of industrial health, which goes far beyond the mere question of mercury contamination. We have given notice of our intention of taking a number of steps in this field. I refer the hon. member to the announcement made by my colleague, the Minister of Labour, some months ago.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: In the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may I direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It relates to the obvious and rather serious conflict within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to its dual responsibilities, the regulatory responsibility on the one hand through the Atomic Energy Control Board, and the responsibility for operating groups, such as AECL and the other. Can the minister confirm that serious consideration is being given to transferring responsibility for the Atomic Energy Control Board from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to another department of government?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: I can confirm that there are some interdepartmental discussions going on as to the best way to revise or to re-examine this situation. That is as far as I can go now.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's difficulty, but I wonder if he would go so far as to confirm that it is his view that the responsibility for the regulatory agency, that is the Atomic Energy Control Board, would be more appropriate within the Department of the Environment than its present position within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I have no territorial ambitions, only the 200 mile fishing zone. The subject is obviously one which is coming up for discussion. I think the whole area of environmental health and other aspects have to be considered, not as one isolated area of responsibility but in fact in close co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, obviously the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of the Environment.
March 4, 1977


William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give us the target completion date for discussions regarding the transfer of authority for AECB?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not confirmed there is a decision to transfer authority. I said that discussions are going on, the problem is recognized and is being worked out.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the agreement signed earlier this week with the United States for an exchange of nationals under sentence of incarceration or under probation order in the respective countries. With respect to conversations with the provinces-and I understand from the minister's press release that discussions will continue with the provinces concerning a variety of matters including responsibility for custody, for the transfer of juveniles and the status of persons on probation-there is no indication that perhaps the most pressing issue of all, that of the additional expenditures that will be imposed upon the various provinces, particularly those that have already indicated publicly as the premier of Prince Edward Island did recently, following a meeting with attorneys general in Toronto, when he denounced federal assistance for being woefully short, that this matter is going to be raised? I think as increased social programs or prisoner transfers take place, this weighs exceptionally heavily on provinces that can ill afford to deal with these expenditures.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of additional expenditures, if there are indeed any additional expenditures, for the provinces would be raised at the continuing meetings that we plan to have with the provinces on this question. I should point out, however, that there is a strong possibility that some United States nationals might be transferred out of provincial prisons to the United States under the terms of the agreement. In those cases, the provinces could very well receive financial advantage which we would in turn be inclined to ask them to offset by accepting in certain cases the transfer of Canadian nationals presently in American penitentiaries back to their home province.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has mentioned the situation of those who might be transferred from prisons in Canada to the United States. He did not indicate, however, in what respect the department might respond in terms of those on probation or parole inasmuch as the services in these areas vary greatly across the country. Certainly, the idea of reunifying or bringing back nationals to their own country is an admirable one in terms of rehabilitation but such services might not be adequate or the provinces could not afford to fund such services outside
Oral Questions
of the actual imprisonment. Is the minister carrying out discussions at that level and has he indicated the federal government would be prepared to equalize in the manner it does in other social programs?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, we would definitely be willing to consider the matter. If there is any unduly high financial hardship imposed on any particular province as a result of the exchange we would be willing to look at it on a case by case basis.


AIR TRANSPORT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In both Montreal and Toronto, the Prime Minister has publicly stated that he supports the right to use French in the air over the province of Quebec in air-to-ground communications. In view of the fact that the government has appointed a three-man commission of inquiry to look into this whole question and set up a costly simulation test, are we to gather from the Prime Minister's statements that the inquiry is not necessarily going to be proceeded with, is not a viable operation, and that in fact the question of safety will not be examined but that French will be used whether or not it is safe?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it has always been our very clear intention to find the procedures which allow full safety and allow the use of both French and English in air traffic control in the province of Quebec. We have always been confident that those procedures could be found and therefore it has been our stated intention. The role of the commission is therefore to be very fully understood in terms of itself, judging that our discovery of those safe procedures is indeed a discovery of safe procedures and nothing more than that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In other words, it is not a question of if, it is a question of how.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in terms of our confidence that safe procedures can be found the answer is yes.


ABORTION
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the numerous references in the Badgley report to the lack of comprehensive and complete information about the unknown, long-term physical and mental effects of abortion

March 4, 1977
Oral Questions
and in order to protect the health of Canadian women, would the minister have his department conduct an appropriate study of this serious situation?


Marc Lalonde: I will look into this matter, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister promised to look into the answer to a question I asked last Friday. He is not here today so I wonder if his colleague, the Minister of Transport, can reply to the question of whether the government's announced cutback on the support program for urban transit would revoke the understandings with the authorities in the city of Edmonton with regard to Edmonton's underground system?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commuter program which was announced over a year ago did not relate to orders which had been placed prior to a particular date. That raised certain questions in relation to some of the developments in Edmonton, although, of course, future orders and developments under the terms of that announcement would be eligible. We have had some broad discussions with the provinces about some possible rearrangement of our urban transportation assistance under that program that could have some effect upon Edmonton. No decisions have been taken in that regard, however.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the province of Alberta is already committed to over $50 million in the initial stages of this program and recognizing that Phase I of the Edmonton program could not be included in the government announcement, the question is, because of long-lead items and the necessity of placing orders now, can the government give any assurance that subsequent phases of this program will have the assistance of the federal government as originally promised?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, Edmonton will know of the announcement of a year ago and its terms and the fact that regulations soon to be promulgated in relation to that program will spell out in technical detail the eligibility for them. The only question is that between now and the date of the promulgation of regulations, a final decision will be taken about the whole method of handling the urban assistance funds that could affect the situation. In general, I would say that those who would have been eligible under the announcement of a year or so ago in relation to the $100 million program will remain eligible, although perhaps with a different form of decision-making on the part of the provinces in relation to receipt of the funds.
[Mrs. Appolloni.)


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment which concerns the proposal for the diversion of the McGregor River into Williston Lake in British Columbia. Figures given by some of the groups opposing this indicate an annual loss of revenue as a result of fish kill, of as much as $4,300,000. Given the fact that the federal government participated in the December study which recommended the McGregor diversion, can the minister advise the House whether it is the government's position that, in view of its participation, it is in support of the diversion of the McGregor River in British Columbia?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for letting me know he would be asking this question. When the report was released in Victoria by the minister of the environment for British Columbia and myself, we made it very clear that this was a report put together by a group of federal and provincial officials dealing with the problem of flood control and diversion of water which moves down the Fraser. I made it very clear that the water section of my department saw this as a solution or part solution to the problem of flooding. I have serious misgivings, as I indicated to the hon. member, about the damage which could be done to the fishery by lowering the water flow and also by the potential introduction of non-Fraser system biological species, which could also have a detrimental effect. Obviously, unless those objections can be overcome, we are very much opposed.
[DOT] (U50)


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the minister earlier gave the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, that he was willing to release reports about problems in the north, and since I understand that the Department of the Environment completed the study on the potential damage on the McGregor diversion project in 1974 but that study remains classified, would the minister now undertake to the House to release any studies he may have concerning the damage, so that the committee may be aware of the effects of this project?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the report is classified, I will see if I can unclassify it. That is my policy. I prefer a full discussion based on facts.
March 4, 1977


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, of which 1 gave him notice a couple of weeks ago. This is my first opportunity to raise it. My question has to do with an article which appeard in the Winnipeg Free Press, and the question 1 asked about three months ago regarding allegations made in an article written by Mike Ward of the Free Press suggesting that perhaps CMHC, in its dealings with the Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation, could have paid excessive prices for land. I wonder if the minister has a report for the House.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have the answer for the hon. member quite some time ago but this is the first opportunity he has to ask me this question. I can tell him that my officials have discussed this matter with the Manitoba Housing Corporation and they came to the conclusion that the difficulty is strictly administrative and lies in the way the Manitoba Housing Corporation registers the prices of land in its books. So there is no serious disagreement and no irregularity.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Recently the minister spent some time in Victoria. Has he discussed with officials in Victoria ways to eliminate the disparities between subsidies provided to eastern ferries and western ferries, and is the government now prepared to assume 50 per cent of the responsibility for the ferry system on the west coast? If so, when can we expect such an announcement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, different issues arise in different regions of the country and, because of constitutional arrangements, matters on the east coast cannot be treated in the same way as other policy issues. I can only say at this time that questions relating to ferry service on the west coast are the subject of discussion between governments, but I have nothing to add about any final decision.


ARRANGEMENTS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL SHIPPING-POSSIBILITY OF PERMANENT ARRANGEMENT
Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the new, improved shipping arrangement for the west coast is now four months old and it is a makeshift proposition, are we to assume that this will now be
Oral Questions
a permanent arrangement, or will there be an announcement concerning a new arrangement? Also, the Minister of State responsible for fitness and amateur sports said three or four months ago that she would resign in six weeks if something better were not in place. Is the Prime Minister combing the backbenches on the government side with a fine tooth comb, looking for a replacement for that position?


An hon. Member:: She's still skating on the canal.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the withdrawal of the expensive subsidy to the Northland service it was decided and agreed upon by almost all in authority involved, including those in provincial government circles, that it was preferable to move goods and passengers by separate modes, rather than by a combined service, and this could be done in total at far less cost. At that time there was an indication that the broad plan would be to find better passenger vessels for the connecting trips along the coast, in order to bring people either to the main ferry stops or, indeed, to air services. The acquisition of these vessels would, I imagine, be contemplated by whoever has over-all responsibility for operating the service in future. That responsibility, and that arrangement, is one of the matters under discussion.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of which he had notice. With reference to the take-over of Western Wheel by Hayes-Dana, is it true that representations opposing this takeover were received by FIR A from Canadian companies in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and that subsequent to this the announcement was made in November, 1976, that the application had been refused?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, according to the information I have, a first application was turned down. A second application increasing the benefits accruing to the Canadian economy was made and accepted a few weeks ago.


TAKE-OVER OF WESTERN WHEEL BY HAYES-DANA- ACCEPTANCE OF SECOND APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTIFYING OBJECTORS
Bruce Halliday: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it now the policy of F1RA and the government to accept a second application in such a case, to reconsider the matter and finally give cabinet approval and public announcement without even informing the original objectors that a
3666

March 4, 1977
Oral Questions
repeat application had been made, thereby denying our Canadian companies an opportunity to state their case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In any case, Mr. Speaker, whenever an application is turned down anyone can submit a repeat application and offer better guarantees to the Canadian government. That is exactly what happened. The Foreign Investment Review Agency is not a court; it examines each application and decides on its merit.


QUOTA ON CLOTHING IMPORTS-DATE OF DECISION ON NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As there seems to have been a real foul-up in the government's program to protect clothing manufacturers by restricting imports, in that the quota of 2.3 million units announced in September, 1976, was based on incorrect government estimates, will the minister indicate when a decision will be forthcoming on the numbers of units of imported clothing which will be allowed to enter this country, especially in the case of companies which have already paid through letters of credit for goods which they are not allowed to land?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing this situation just now. I do not know whether there have been foul-ups. I know that the government has committed itself to the protection of the clothing industry in Canada, and if there have been foul-ups, we shall make amends; otherwise, the government will stand on its position.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and has to do with the announcement made a few days ago by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that supplementary estimates will be placed before parliament to permit DEVCO to make an ex gratia payment of $500 to pre-retired coal miners or their widows. I am sure hon. members are aware of this longstanding grievance, and if they are not they ought to be. May I ask the minister if, when the $500 payment is made, the recipients will be subject to a means test regarding the guaranteed income supplement or any other governmental benefit they may receive? In other words, will it be a no strings attached arrangement?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very happy, as I am, that a solution should have been found in this regard, but when he asks me whether, once that amount has been paid, it will be considered as income affecting other sources of income those people may have, it is difficult for me to know exactly what the consequences will be. Still, I brought up the matter with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who is also looking into the matter of knowing whether that income will be taxable. I trust that within the next few weeks we will be in a position to give a more specific answer to the concerns expressed to me about the way that amount will be treated.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his reply; unfortunately, I did not hear all of it. Is he saying, really, that although this payment will be made, and God knows it is small enough, the government will give $500 on the one hand but will take it back on the other through the Department of National Revenue and deductions for guaranteed income supplement. In other words, the miners will be no further ahead. Was the minister saying that?


Marcel Lessard: No, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not what I said, and I am rather disappointed that the hon. member, who made many representations to me on behalf of those people, should claim today that the proposal I made to my colleagues, and which he and other members of the NDP supported, provides for only a very small amount to remedy the situation.


Robert Muir: At no time did I say $500 was sufficient. That is on record.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. I have given her notice of the question. At the present time chemicals and herbicides are imported from the United States by farmers, including fertilizer manufactured in Canada, finding its way to the United States and being bought at a reduction of $25 a ton. There are now rumours that the border will be closed by the Department of National Revenue and that these purchases will no longer be allowed. Can the minister tell me whether in fact tariff item No. 9381101 is no longer going to be valid and whether the minister is contemplating closing the border, thus adding further hardship to farmers caught in the cost-price squeeze?
March 4, 1977


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told me after prayers that he would ask me this question. I replied to him that we had no intention of closing the border. However, 1 do not know the particulars of the case he brought to my attention earlier this morning. 1 will inquire.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I would appreciate being permitted one brief supplementary. With regard to the LearStar jet program, can the minister advise the House if the Canadian Export Development Corporation is assisting in the financing of the purchase order by Federal Express, an American company? If so, how much is the financial commitment by the EDC and what is the security of the loan?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the sale to Federal Express was commercial and financed by the Export Development Corporation. It involved 25 aircraft whose unit cost averages, I believe, $4,700,000. I shall figure it out and give the results. It was an export sale and, as in the case of many other industries, it requires the services of a Crown company.


LEARSTAR JET PROGRAM-POSSIBLE QUID PRO QUO FOR PURCHASES BY FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PROGRAM BY MR. GOLDEN
A. Daniel McKenzie: Has Federal Express made application to operate their package delivery business in Canada and is government blessing of their application part of the quid pro quo of their purchase of Lear jets? Will Mr. David Golden, president of Telesat Canada, who is conducting an investigation into the Canadair and de Havilland operations be studying the feasibility of continuing with the LearStar jet program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, Federal Express has never made any application to operate in Canada. Incidentally, in a discussion with this company's president, Mr. Smith, he has confirmed to me that he was absolutely not interested in establishing this service in Canada, so there has been no quid pro quo, he has made no application and he is not even interested.
As for Mr. Golden, he is going to examine all the operations of de Havilland and Canadair, including of course the aircraft
Order Paper Questions
they manufacture. He will then be able to comment on the LearStar jet program. I take this opportunity to point out that two weeks ago we had sold 65 aircraft and that today this number has gone up to 71.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, on behalf of the Prime Minister, copies, in both official languages, of a letter which he sent today to the chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.


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: 139 (corrected), 1,307, 1,482, 1,499, 1,522, 1,523, 1,623, 1,651, 1,708, 1,721, 1,722, 1,732, 1,750 to 1,761 inclusive, 1,763 to 1,769 inclusive, 1,771 and 1,833.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 139-Mr. Orlikow: (corrected)
1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom7
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?
Marc Lalonde: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. (a) $429,623. (b) $160,556.
2.	(a) See statement No. 1 below, (b) See statement No. 2 below.
3.	(a) $203,590. (b) $7,730.
80010-26V2
3668______________________________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________ March 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Statement No. 1	Statement No. 1
Contractor	Cost
M.N. Lopianouski & Associates Ltd.	2,803
Adimec Inc.	7,700
William Cameron	3,240
Gordon MacDougall	4,997
Gordon MacDougall	4,541
Square One Management Ltd.	4,914
Michael Abbot	1,000
J. Graham Clarkson Consultants Ltd.	8,510
Systems Approach Ltd.	2,930
Centre de recherche medicale de TUniversite de	
Sherbrooke	14,166
Claude Castonguay	6,690
Donald Green	9,055
Prof. Larry Taman	2,100
Prof. Larry Taman	3,200
Dr. Luc Laroche	3,800
Ralph McKendry	6,300
Rashim Ahluwalia	440
Graig Angus	825
Dick de Jong	1,175
Dr. Lucinda V, Brettler	4,600
Edward S. Cardwall	150
Robert A. Davis	3,126
Joyce Askwith	150
Marie Berlinguet	200
Raymond Boutin	150
Douglas Braun	2,750
Marie-Paul Doyle	150
Family Counselling Service	428
Carmina Gordon	200
Dr. James F. Hawkes	1,644
Lawrence F. Heinman	1,466
C. Norman Knight	2,250
David Hagerman	2,000
Robert Marcus	150
Grant Lowery	17,000
Rolande Morin	2,585
Robert Marcuse	200
John McDonald	4,950
John McDonald 1,797	
Ontario Association of Marriage and Family	
Counsellors	700
Maureen Orton	150
Company L87429 (Ontario) Ltd.	35,000
Ruth Cooperstock	600
Roland Crooks	3,600
Dr. Lynn Davie	1,150
Emergency Associates	1,000
Epidemiologic Research Associates	5,000
Dr. William Harrell	2,000
Memorial University of Newfoundland	4,700
George Nichols	3,600
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education	5,820
Kai Pernanen	700
Policy Research Inc.	4,000
Dr. Simona Radouco-Thomas	3,000
Dr. Lewis C. Robbins	3,000
Santa Cabrina Hospital, Montreal, Quebec	5,000
John R. Schallow	2,250
Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada	17,307
Randall C. Potts	2,000
University of Calgary	14,700
University of Toronto	3,455
P. C. Whitehead Assoc.	4,800
Canadian Public Health Association	5,000
William C. Lam	2,500
Ernest Wotton	2,500
Dr. George K. Jarvis	5,000
Dr. George K. Jarvis	5,000
Mr. Cyril Dabydeen	3,500
Ruth H. Blue	3,990
Ruth H. Blue	3,220
Walter D. Brust	4,950

Contractor	Cost
R. A. Lacerte et Associes 5,919	
William Martin	5,000
Harry A. Hicks	4,500
Doris Stepler	1,840
R. A. Lacerte et Associes	28,737
Mac H. Haufe	2,850
Leetham, Simpson Ltd.	5,275
Balmer, Crapo & Associates Inc.	5,000
Dr. Stanley Brown	4,000
Dr. Robert Hindmarch	5,000
Mrs. Judy Hunter	5,000
Dr. Maurice Jette	5,000
Dr. Gregg McKelney	4,500
Jean-Guy Noel	4,800
George Shepherd	1,500
Pernie Swords	3,000
Dr. Peter Witt	4,500
Dr. Jack Daniels	5,000
Dr. Rena Paul	200
Denise Dicker	200
Glenn Rutherford	200
William Thomson	200
Glenn Rutherford	200
Dr. Leonard Rutman	4,278
Dr. Paul Sachdev	200
Dr. Ben Schlesinger	400
Statement No. 2	
Department of Supply and Services	
Audit Services Bureau	98,000
Audit Services Bureau	38,356
Bureau of Management Consulting	4,837
Bureau of Management Consulting	14,013
David Hagerman	1,600
Lome Plunkett	1,500
Lome Plunkett	2,250


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	What (a) was the purchase date (b) is the total area (c) was the purchase price of the land on which the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo, Japan is located?
2.	On what date were the buildings constructed on the land and, in each case, what was the construction cost?
3.	Have any appraisals been made of the property within the past two years and, if so, what was the estimated value of the land and buildings?
4.	What is the estimated current market value of the land (a) with buildings (b) without buildings?
5.	How many (a) Ottawa-based (b) other than Ottawa-based persons are employed at the Embassy in Tokyo?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to construct or alter any buildings on the site of the Tokyo Embassy and, if so, what is the estimated expenditure of such construction and/or alterations?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) Three acres were purchased in 1935 and an adjoining parcel of slightly over one acre was purchased in 1952; (b) Total area 4.12 acres; (c) Purchase price $285,500.
2. (i) Original Chancery, residence, and ancillary buildings were acquired in 1935 with land purchase; (ii) A Chancery extension was built in 1955 at a cost of $331,702; (iii) A temporary office building was erected in 1968 at cost of $170,838.
March 4, 1977

3.	No.
4.	Estimated current market value is therefore not available.
5.	Ottawa based employees, 54; locally engaged staff, 82.
6.	(i) Yes, new construction and alterations are intended for the existing site of the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo. The redevelopment of the site will include the construction of a new office building and display centre, renovations to the existing Chancery building, demolition of a temporary office building, renovations to the existing residence. The new office space will provide accommodation for all present operations of the Embassy (including those activities which are now located off the site) and for future expansion; (ii) The estimated construction costs amount to $15.2 million.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many copies of the booklet Thirty-six ways to put bilingualism to work for you were published by the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	What was the total cost of the booklet?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. First print: 28,615 copies. Second print: estimated 20,000 copies (in process).
2. Costs: First print: $58,297.22; Second print: $36,872 (estimated).
Order Paper Questions
4.	How many servicemen whose mother tongue is English and who arc unilingual or bilingual were assigned to the Base in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
5.	How many bilingual servicemen whose mother tongue is English were transferred from the Base in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. All
units in the Montreal area are administered by Canadian Forces Base Montreal including those located at Longue Pointe and St. Hubert (See Question No. 1,523). It is not possible to isolate the figures for Longue Pointe and St. Hubert units and the data given below therefore covers all the Military Forces in the Montreal area. CFB Montreal is classified bilingual and plans are now formulated for the designation of the base and some of its units as French Language units.
2. (a) and (b)
Unilingual
Bilingual
3. (a) and (b)
Unilingual
Bilingual
Anglophones
246
Anglophones
109
Francophones
1,202
Francophones
404
4.	(a) and (b). 1975 Unilingual, 105; 1976, 90; 1975 Bilingual, 70; 1976, 70.
5.	(a) and (b) 1975, 94; 1976, 109.


Mr. Herbert: Will payments under the Prince Edward Island programme of assistance toward improved home insulation reflect the varying insulation values of the materials used?


André Ouellet: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Payments under the Home Insulation Grant Programme in Prince Edward Island will be based on invoices covering the costs of materials and/or labour, to a maximum of $350 for materials only, or $500 for materials and labour. The cost of materials will reflect varying insulation values to the extent that these determine the prices of insulating materials.


Mr. Lachance: 1.	Is the Canadian Armed Forces Base at Saint-Hubcrt classified bilingual?
2.	How many servicemen assigned to the Base arc classifcd by mother tongue as (a) English (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual (b) French (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual?
3.	How many civil employees assigned to the Base are classified by mother tongue as (a) English (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual (b) French (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual?
4.	How many servicemen whose mother tongue is English and who are unilingual or bilingual were assigned to the Base in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
5.	How many bilingual servicemen whose mother tongue is English were transferred from the Base in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: See
answer to Question No. 1,522.


Mr. Lachance: 1.	Is the Canadian Armed Forces Base at Longue Pointe classified bilingual and, if so, is it true that this base will be reclassified French unilingual in six months?
2.	How many servicemen assigned to the Base are classifed by mother tongue as (a) English (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual (b) French (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual?
3.	How many civil employees assigned to the Base are classified by mother tongue as (a) English (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual (b) French (i) unilingual (ii) bilingual?


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many Armed Forces personnel and Department of National Defence employees are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the estimated value of property, including Armed Forces bases, equipment and other operations located in the Province?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. As
of December 31, 1976: Military, 10,697; Civilians in continu-

March 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions
ing positions, 4,894; Civilians in non-continuing positions 828; Total, 16,419. Military, $130,302,000; Civilian, $74,439,000; Total, $204,741,000.
2. $1,150 million.



Mr. Beatty: 1.	How many questions on the Order Paper marked with an asterisk were answered in 1976?
2.	On the average, how many days elapsed between the placing on the Order Paper of such questions and their being answered by the government and how does the figure compare with the average amount of time taken to answer other questions on the Order Paper during the same period?
3.	Does the government give any priority to such questions that is not given to other questions?


Ralph Goodale: 1. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (ff).
2.	The Government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions.
3.	The Government complies with Mr. Speaker's ruling. (Debates, February 27, 1975, page 3625).


Mr. Howie: Has there been any installation, modification or improvement of communications systems at CFB Gagetown since January 1, 1976 and, if so (a) in what manner (b) by whom (c) at what cost?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
The changes and improvements made to the communications systems at CFB Gagetown since January 1, 1976 are listed below. Some of these improvements are still in progress: Improvement to the Base Cabling System; Crytographic Equipment; Fixed/mobile and portable radio capability; and Message processing equipment, (b) Installation was conducted by Burroughs Business Machine Ltd. under contract, and by DND personnel. Equipment was purchased from; Canadian Motorola Ltd., Teletype Corporation, Computer Sciences of Canada, (c) Costs for 1976/77 are estimated to be approximately $115,000.
NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACTS FOR RENOVATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS OF PMQs AT CFB GAGETOWN SINCE APRIL 1, 1976


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1976, have any contracts been let for the renovation or improvement of PMQ units owned by the Department of National Defence at CFB Gagetown and (a) if so (i) to whom (ii) in what amounts (b) if not, are any such improvements contemplated?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. One contract was awarded, (a) (i) Malach Roofing and Flooring Ltd.; (ii) $59,100. (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Does the Department of National Defence contemplate any alterations or additions to the units currently posted at CFB Gagetown and, if so, in what manner?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
Department of National Defence plans to add one armoured squadron which will be a training squadron to coincide with the delivery of new Leopard tanks to the units currently posted at CFB Gagetown.


Mr. Herbert: What government financial assistance was provided to the Montreal Symphony Orchestra in the past ten years and is any such assistance contemplated in the immediate future?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Since the 1967-68 season, the Council has made grants to aid in the Montreal Symphony Orchestra's operations totalling $4,420,000. One might reasonably expect that the MSO will continue to solicit the Council's assistance on an annual basis, at a level not less than this year's grant of $660,000.


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


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil;
(b) nil.
March 4, 1977


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
Name	(a) 1975	(b) 1976Hutchison, J. M.	-	S523.25
Victoria, B.C.
Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow	$545.00	$971.99
Victoria, B.C.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil;
(b) nil.
Order Paper Questions


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law Firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia, who performed services during (a) 1975 (b) 1976 for the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and, in each case, what was the total amounl paid?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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

March 4, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
Name	(a) 1975	(b) 1976Branson, C. O. D. Victoria, B.C.	610.23	"Cox, Kenneth, B. Victoria, B.C.	27,603.37	35,679.67Hutchison, J. M. Victoria, B.C.	768.05	155.57Pearlman, Lindholm & Co. Victoria, B.C.	-	2,936.73Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow Victoria, B.C.	700.48	540.25RETENTION OF LAWYERS IN CONSTITUENCY OF	VICTORIA, B.C.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
Name	(a) 1975	(b) 1976Hutchison, R. B.	-	$1,377.63
Victoria, B.C.
Stewart, Ian H.	$232.00	361.20
Victoria, B.C.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil; (b) nil.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: (a) nil;
(b) nil.
March 4, 1977


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
Name
Hutchison, J. M Victoria, B.C.
Hutchison, R. B Victoria, B.C.
*Work assigned during period in question but accounts have not yet been submitted.


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


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned:
Name	(a) 1975	(b) 1976Branson, C. O. D.	$1,121.70	$616.05
Victoria, B.C.
Cox, Kenneth B.	462.29
Victoria, B.C.
Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow	-	645.42
Victoria, B.C.
NATIONAL DEFENCE-CFB GAGETOWN-NUMBER OF UNITS OCCUPIED/UNOCCUPIED AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1977


Mr. Howie: As of February 1, 1977, how many PMQ units at CFB Gagetown were (a) unoccupied (b) occupied by non-military personnel or their dependents?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
315; (b) 193.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Dean Waldon Whiteway: That in view of the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, and of promoting energy conservation, industrial development and employment, this ttousc condemns the Liberal government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of its 1974 election pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transport systems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the universe is not unfolding as it should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: While the cities of our nation are on the threshhold of a crisis convergence, the front bench of the Trudeau government seem more anxious to fight their own backbenchers rather than fight the problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Because of the action and, for the most part, the inaction of this government, members on this side have little choice but on this opposition day to move the motion that has been read. The strength of it warrants that it be read again:
That in view of the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, and of promoting energy conservation, industrial development and employment, this House condemns the Liberal government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of its 1974 election pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transport systems.
I have in my hand a list of the election promises. However, on June 17, 1974, they were not referred to as promises. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to them in the city of Toronto as Liberal pledges. In Toronto he referred to them as pledges. Right across the country they were referred to as pledges. The pledges read like this, Mr. Speaker: 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.
These were pledges, using the pledge word "will". I would identify and characterize these pledges as jarbble, garble. I want Hansard to get the correct spelling: it is jarbble, garble. I know how to spell the words, but I must confess I do not know what they mean because they are meaningless. Therefore, they
(a) 1975	(b) 1976
__ *
$233	*

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
accurately describe the Liberal policy. The parliamentary language for Liberals reneging on their election pledges would be that the Prime Minister inadvertantly misled the Canadian people. In Selkirk they would say these pledges were nothing less than black, foul lies. The policy being followed is one of off again, on again.
I want to quote what the Prime Minister said as reported at page 3568 of Hansard in answer to a question raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party. He stated in his reply that the government was not reconsidering these pledges or these promises, but that is was considering them. Mr. Speaker, this is confusing. The Prime Minister suggests the government is now considering the pledges which were made three years ago, that it is considering such statements that I have read before which show it to be "will" committed. It is obvious that "yes" in the course of a campaign is really "no" to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in Toronto and "maybe" to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The attitude on the part of the government is to say, in one year, "Deal me in", and in another, "Count me out". Let me say that the Canadian people will not only count them out but vote them out if they ever dare to issue a writ.
I want to say this to the government front benchers, "You can't get away. We have you surrounded. Not only do you face the fury of truth from this side of the House, but you face a Grit uprising on your own side". The Liberal party is a party which suggests there is always solidarity in the cabinet and unity in the ranks. That is not the case. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) is in his place at the moment. The personal qualities of the hon. member for Halton are to be admired by every member of the House. He could not find it within himself to go along with this on again, off again ploy on the part of his leaders. I appreciate an attitude of that kind as shown by the hon. member and by other members, particularly from the Toronto area. His actions were not unlike those of an aspiring knight who rides his shining stallion to do battle against the dragon which would lay waste the cities. That knight from Halton obviously expected to be dubbed, but later found he had been duped. I want to quote the words of the hon. member for Halton as reported at page 3588 of Hansard:
Besides transport there is this other issue-the business of honouring commitment, the business of keeping election promises, the business of the integrity and the credibility of government.
To the hon. member for Halton I say, "Well said!" I hope those words are still ringing in the ears of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. In my opening remarks I spoke of a crisis convergence in the urban centres of this country. I am not suggesting that urban transportation is a cure-all, a magic wand which will solve all ills by one mighty swoop. The last magic wand I heard of was lost somewhere by the former late prime minister of the Liberal party. But urban transportation is the key to the solution of many of the problems facing large urban centres today. I want to quote from a document called "Metroplan Concept and Objectives".

Members will recognize it immediately as being a plan for metropolitan Toronto. On page four we find these words:
The fundamental concept of this plan expressed in physical terms is to create a multicentred urban structure. This can be achieved by the development of a system of employment centres linked together by an effective transit system.
On page ten the study makes an even clearer statement:
Inherent in the plan is a shift of emphasis from roads to transit.
The key to urban planning today is the provision of modern, efficient rapid transit systems. Mr. Speaker, by profession I am a teacher. By trade I am a cobbler. If I had a blackboard here I could illustrate what I say graphically for the benefit of the House. But imagine a circle with urban transportation at the centre and, on the periphery, the basic problems of our cities-oil and energy resources, the balance of payments, industrial development, technological development, employment, housing. Finally there is the idea which is the common thread linking all these issues together-the quality of life which the 75 per cent of Canadians who live in urban centres are seeking. In each of the areas I have mentioned there is a crisis. No one can deny there is a crisis of unemployment; no one can deny there is a crisis in housing; a crisis relating to our competitiveness in world markets; a crisis in the balance of payments situation.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A crisis of leadership over there, too.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: We are now two months into the year 1977 and the federal government has finally realized and put on paper what we on this side have been telling them for years, namely, that you cannot impose your priorities on the provinces and on the municipalities-that there must be co-operation. At this very moment the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is wining and dining a trilevel conference. When the minister eats, I hope the conference will take the opportunity to speak. However, I wonder whether he really hears. He says that he listens, but he does not hear.
If I may return to this noble document, Bill C-33, proposed section 3(2) outlines the government's responsibility in implementing transportation policy. It goes on to provide in paragraph (a) that the government of Canada should establish national policies respecting the various constituent parts of the transportation system. I cannot argue with that, Mr. Speaker; that is sound thinking, reasonable thinking, and a reflection of what we have been saying for years. But the interpretation that I put on the recent actions of the government suggests that they have cancelled an urban transportation commitment. The government is saying these great and wondrous things when just two weeks ago the Minister of Finance, at a special cabinet meeting in Toronto called to try to improve their image in the Gallup polls, made the announcement that the commitments which I earlier referred to in my speech, these pledges to the Canadian people, were no longer valid. He said, "I am sorry, boys. In the name of restraint, it's off'. There are at least four cities in this country which were shocked, to say the least, by that kind of announcement.


John (Moody) Roberts: Which ones?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Now a minister has come to life. If he does not know which cities these are, let me tell him that he will find out. They will be hounding him in time to come.


Walter David Baker: His own city, for one.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: He has never heard of Toronto. I hope that he is aware of the words of his colleague on the back benches and that those words are still ringing in the ears of the front benchers. Obviously the minister has not heard the words. I hope the hon. member for Hampton-I mean Halton-


Ralph Goodale: You were not even close.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: -will take the minister out to lunch. As a matter of fact, if he will listen, if the hon. member takes him to lunch and reads him his speech, I will pay the bill. The four cities are Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) will be speaking in this debate about Edmonton. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will be speaking on Toronto. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) will speak about Vancouver; and I shall be speaking about a city that is in the heart of the nation, the great city of Winnipeg.
Urban Transport
I want the minister, who has just been aroused from his slumber, to realize that on the initiative of the federal government the city of Winnipeg was asked to undertake a study known as the southwest transit study. Perhaps the minister has not heard about that, but somebody over there has, anyway. This seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time. There was an abandoned CN line from downtown Winnipeg out to the University of Manitoba. The study was to be in two phases. It was to explore the viability of a rapid transit system from the downtown core area out to the university. Phase one has been completed. Phase two has just got under way, and now the Minister of Finance pulls the plug. Let me tell him that to thwart the objectives of western Canadians will take more than the "out again" attitudes of this government. The city of Winnipeg intends to complete this study. Perhaps the city will not be able to finance the $17 million which it will take to build the transit system, but we will at least complete the study, and perhaps by that time we will have a government which will place more weight on commitments than does the present government.
I have already said that the key to proper urban development is a transportation infrastructure. We in this country cannot have one policy for housing, one for energy, another for urban transit, another for conservation, an entirely different policy for employment, and yet another for industrial development. The nation cannot afford this kind of piecemeal approach. The funding is not there. The municipalities cannot afford the capital expenditure required to build a rapid transit system in our cities. Their only revenue base is the property tax. How many times and in how many different ways do we have to tell the government that the municipalities cannot afford this kind of expenditure?
The key to the problem is transportation. The government's own studies have told them that. Then at the critical moment the government withdraws its support. Not only is this a politically immoral thing to do; it is an economically wrong thing to do. The rationale for this action is economic restraint-and economic restraint and the AIB is another inconsistency within this government. I should like nothing better than to take a few minutes of my time to point out once more to the Canadian people how this government has done a flip-flop on that subject. Members on this side do support, as we supported before the election, restraint on government spending.


Mr. Gilbert:: Restraint if necessary, but not necessarily restraint.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Seldom do words of wisdom come from New Democrats, but would the hon. member say that again so that it is on the record?


John Gilbert: 1 said, restraint if necessary, but not necessarily restraint.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In the name of economic restraint the government pulls the plug. It is a "motherhood" argument to slow down the economy; everyone agrees with that. But I am

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
concerned about the long-term consequences of proposed provincial cutbacks on the essential capital expansion requirements of our cities, of which transit is but one. Transit investment is not extravagance; it is essential in the face of natural and urban resource scarcity.
Government spending policies are the highest level expression of management rationale in our society to regain the economic ability to meet our needs. We must stimulate our national investment effort as we moderate direct consumption. As we necessarily reduce total expenditures we must make wise choices about the things we need and the things we do not need. All public expenditures are not bad; we on this side are the first to say that. How we de-escalate spending will determine how efficiently we will be able to recover. Unless we show farsighted concern for the financial consequences of public spending cuts we make today we will continue to build-in fundamentally unsolvable urban financial problems. It is time to reinforce our commitment to more efficient investment in energy, housing and urban transportation because the aggregate demand for all basic capital goods like housing, sewage, electrical energy, transportation and jobs continues to grow while agricultural land, urban space, public wealth and the availability of time in which to change continues to diminish.
Cutting back now on public capital investment which is essential to economic urban housing, transport and industrial development, would be an economically fatal mistake in the anti-inflation program. However, right thinking and good intentions are not enough. Our major problem in the next decade will be to distinguish our needs from our wants. The question of the nature of our demands is the basic social and moral question of our time. Most of us have been thinking about it. Now we must do something about it.
We cannot have less congested cities, more affordable housing, people-oriented neighbourhoods or stabilized property taxes without committing a higher proportion of our national income to investment in better forms of urban growth, and I repeat that urban transportation is the key. The Prime Minister tells us that we must reduce our expectations. I remember that famous speech, and I remember the ripples it caused within his own party. He said that we simply must make do with less. He is wrong; we must learn to do more with less.
Over the Christmas break I spoke in several high schools in the Winnipeg area. I remember well 300 students in an assembly area, most of them sitting on the floor in a very informal bear-pit session and talking about the future of Canada. We were talking about confederation, the Canadian vision and the Canadian dream. One student stood up in the quiet of 300 students, if hon. members can believe it, with tears streaming down her face. She said, "Mr. Whiteway, will you and Mr. Clark give us something to believe in?" The strength of this nation and the strength of our character were built on dreams, hopes, aspirations, and the vision of the Canada we want to see. We do not want the Prime Minister

telling us that we cannot achieve it. We want the Prime Minister to be the kind of leader who challenges every Canadian to reach up and grasp the star which is theirs. That is the kind of leadership which is being demanded by people from one end of the country to the other.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of a crisis convergence. There are serious crises and I have already enumerated the five crisis areas of energy, industrial, employment, technology and urban transportation. I can deal with only two of these today because of the time element. Probably the most critical crisis facing Canada is the energy crisis. My deskmate from the great province of Newfoundland made a great speech a week or two ago. Those who were not in this chamber and did not hear his speech about our energy problems should read it. My comments are but a shadow in the light of the hon. member's enlightening remarks.
He suggested, as I do, that increased oil exploration is one of the two alternatives which face Canada. We can increase our oil exploration, which is the route the government is taking, and we can see that within the next 20 years it will cost $90 billion for the kind of exploration the government has in mind. That, invariably, will mean higher prices at the pumps and higher prices for fuel oil. The other choice the government has is to develop an integrated, rational policy to reduce consumption. I do not want to be a prophet of gloom and doom, but by 1990, 38 per cent of Canada's oil will be offshore oil. By 1985 foreign oil will cost Canada $5 billion. This is lost money. This money will do nothing and will produce nothing.
Another interesting point of which the government should be aware is that by 1985-in eight years' time-half the oil consumption in Canada will be for intracity transportation. Transit systems could reduce that by half, which would mean that the total consumption of oil in Canada could be reduced by 25 per cent. If we could do that, our dependency on offshore oil would be substantially less.
I find it absolutely absurd that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) runs around this country telling Canadians to keep hot water in their bathtubs to heat their houses. There are signs all over Parliament Hill telling us to turn the lights off and take the stairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on, Scrooge.


An hon. Member:: He has been finished for the last 15 minutes.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to come with cap in hand, as it were, asking for
March 4, 1977

unanimous consent to complete my very important remarks on this opposition day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is our motion.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I will take back what I said.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: One hon. member said that I have been finished for the last 15 minutes. Well, this government has been finished for the last two years, but hon. members opposite do not know it. I appreciate the unanimous consent of hon. members and I will quickly finish my remarks. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tinkers with the issue of energy conservation. That is not unlike planting a section of mustard by hand. We are asking the government to get out the big machinery to deal with the problem of urban transportation. That could realistically reduce energy consumption in our cities by 25 per cent of the Canadian total. If that section of mustard is planted by the government, Canadians will plant on the fringes. Canadians will turn out in their lights and keep hot water in their bathtubs. But the minister should not tinker. He should get to the heart of the problem. He should face the problem of energy conservation squarely and tackle it where it really counts.
Our balance of payments situation has reached crisis proportions. Energy costs will be astronomical and the cost of buying offshore oil will be very high, as I mentioned. We are already facing deficits in manufacturing of over $1 billion and deficits in the tourist industry. I could go on. The key to energy conservation is a modern, rapid and efficient transit system. As well, we are facing an industrial crisis. The fundamental question is: Where does the future of technical and industrial development lie in this country, and how will we fare in the international marketplace? We do not have to look far. Canada, as the host of the United Nations Habitat Conference, has brought home the world's need to build cities more efficiently, economically and equitably. We have a self-interest here; we are not being altruistic. It is our problem, too, because we have urgent demographic pressures.
There have been setbacks and disappointments, but it is too early in the Canadian urban experiment to say that it will not work. Just look at the lessons that have been learned in the first few years of this new urban orientation. Public investment in new facilities generates greater use of transit facilities. Within a generation in Canada we could re-establish transit as an acceptable alternative in all new urban developments. We could eliminate the need for most new households to own a second car if we gave transit a high social investment priority.
Urban Transport
Under the new economics of scarcity, particularly energy scarcity, these changes are obviously desirable. The fact is that municipal and provincial governments subsidize transit operations which are not profitable. They are forced to either provide new or expanded services which will be financially intolerable to local government. I want to quote briefly from a speech made by Kirk Foley, president of the Urban Transportation Development Corporation. He said:
As an urban policy strategy this deserves national priority, and if the federal government continues to be reluctant to recognize this inevitability and remains inactive, then the provinces as a matter of economic survival will have to shoulder the burden.
Seventy-five percent of us live in cities, large and small.
I might add that in another 10 to 15 years 90 per cent of us will live in cities. It goes on:
Cities are home for most Canadians. We arc an urban nation. Therefore, the fundamental driving force for recovery of our economic development in the future must be leadership in the formulation of national urban policy.
We can no longer neglect our cities, and we can no longer ignore the inefficiency of their design and technologies, can no longer ignore the opportunity for economic growth through urban technology development.
It is now abundantly clear that a strategy of long-range planning for urban development offering high quality technology alternatives suffers from a lack of conviction at the federal level. It appears the provinces must go it alone.
Since most new technology comes from the private sector, our public policies should mobilize the private sector to develop new technology. The private sector, with government financial assistance, can do it better with government co-ordination to establish a reliable future marketplace at home and abroad, and with a rationalization of equipment requirements we can develop world-leading technology.
Transit systems are public goods and they need public financing. We have a domestic demand and a domestic market in Canada which would justify this kind of development of technology for the rapid transit system in our country. We will have needs over the next ten years in this country approaching $5 billion for the establishment and maintenance of rapid transit systems. We could pay for it by doing nothing more than simply buying for Canada's needs. The bonus would be the saving on energy. The gravy would be if we could sell it to growing cities around the world. We could export that technology. Canadians, for the first time perhaps, have the opportunity to express their skills in creativity in the way that cities are built. The government must be willing to encourage private sector initiatives.
In conclusion, I should like to say that even if the government at this very moment were to come to full repentance and change from its evil ways, it may be too late. It may be too late now to avoid the convergence of the crisis of which I have spoken. I want to emphasise that the opposition does not categorically oppose government spending and government investment. What we do categorically oppose is this hit and miss, piecemeal attacking of the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I say to the government: get your priorities straight, if you have any. Get your act together, follow through

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
on your promises, be consistent, and we will support you from this side, as will the Canadian people.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Otherwise resign.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Do so, anyway.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It leaves the opposition little choice but to reiterate our motion, that in view of the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, and of promoting energy conservation, industrial development and employment, this House, including the hon. member for Halton, condemns the Liberal government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of its 1974 election pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transport systems. This leadership in pragmatism is not leadership at all. If this government cannot and will not give the kind of leadership that is needed now, then let them step aside-because we can.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot pretend to begin to equal the eloquence of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) when he made his remarks this afternoon. I will do my best, but I do not think I can equal it. On the other hand, I am quite confident that when the case is put as I intend to put it, to illustrate the problems that arise in connection with the resolution before us today, I know I will have the support of the House and I hope 1 will have given the public listening to and watching this debate much to think about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Where are the Toronto ministers to defend their position?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not on
television yet.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want, first, to acknowledge as a fact what is stated in the resolution, that a promise was made in the last election campaign regarding urban transit.


An hon. Member:: A pledge.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member opposite who spoke about that promise made it sound as if the promise had been that the government would pay for this urban transit program. What I think must be noted is that these commitments, promises and undertakings are promises that are honoured out of tax money. These programs are paid for not by the government, not by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and not by the front bench. These programs are paid for by all the people of Canada, by the taxpayers.
I think it is always important to reassess promises like the promises made during the last election campaign and constantly ask if this is the right expenditure of federal tax money at this time, or if it is something that ought to be put off and

looked at again. I want to suggest that two very important circumstances have arisen since that election campaign which have changed the picture so much that this urban transit program as originally put forward has to be reconsidered. In fact, it would be irresponsible, and I will go so far as to say it would be cynical, given the changed circumstances, to push ahead with the tax money of federal taxpayers into directions that were being considered in 1974.
What are the two events that have taken place? The first, and most important, is the rapid inflation which took place in late 1974 and 1975 that led to reconsideration of a lot of government programs and to reconsideration of the general direction of growth.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is here at the end of my remarks, I would much prefer having the question then. Government restraint and restraint of inflation has become such a high priority that I am surprised the hon. member for Selkirk can stand up without acknowledging that times have changed since 1974 and that the government could not continue seeing the public sector growing at 14, 15, 17 or 23 per cent per year. If we wanted to bring inflation under control some drastic medicine had to be administered to the public sector as to the whole economy.


Howard Earl Johnston: You knew that in 1974.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That was not apparent in 1974. No one expected it. The inflation that took place in late 1974 and early 1975 was not anticipated. It was not something that could be expected. It was as a result of a kind of inflationary psychology in reaction to what had been felt earlier. No one anticipated double-digit inflation. Government restraint has become the most important single theme of activities of the government in recent months. It has to continue to be. The responsibility to do something for urban transport, to deliver on a promise made during the election campaign, has to be reconsidered in times of restraint.
The second change which has taken place that calls for reconsideration of the federal government role in urban transport is the development in the shape of Canadian federalism. I was present last December at the first ministers' conference. All hon. members are aware that at that conference it was fundamentally recognized that provincial governments had a job to do and that the federal government had, until this conference and until the fiscal arrangements bill before us goes through, the fiscal resources coming to it to do many of the jobs that were within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Their's is the federal interest, the national interest in all aspects of life in Canada, but the constitution allocates certain responsibility to the provinces.
During the years leading up to the last election, and more recently, there had been a tendency for the federal government to finance activities in areas of provincial jurisdiction. I think it was generally recognized that it was not appropriate for the
March 4, 1977

federal government to be funding provincial programs. That is one of the problems that has troubled federalism in Canada. The solution agreed to at the federal-provincial conference, and what I submit we will see more and more in the years ahead, was a bowing to the provinces and a recognition that in the areas in which they have jurisdiction they ought to have the financial resources to meet that responsibility, and that they ought to undertake the responsibility to raise the revenues to do jobs assigned to them under the constitution.
If there ever was a job clearly within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces, it is urban transit. The hon. member for Selkirk did not deny that. What he kept saying was that the federal government ought to come up with the money because the provinces and the municipalities did not have it. Let me say that the federal government does not have extra money.


Howard Earl Johnston: They are short on talent, too.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As a result of the first ministers' conference and the fiscal transfer taking place under Bill C-37, the Fiscal Arrangements Act, the provinces are about to receive a transfer of over 13 tax points from the federal government. They will become that much stronger in their ability to raise revenue to do the jobs that the constitution assigns to them, and Ottawa will become that much weaker. I do not think that at this time we should be continuing the old style of federalism and cloudy arrangements-


An hon. Member:: Then why did you promise it?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -when it was never clear which government was responsible for what, and which of the taxpayers' pockets the money was coming from.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was outlining why it was important for the government to reconsider the commitment it made during the last general election. I pointed out that promises to spend other people's money, the taxpayers' money, should always be examined in the light of changing conditions. I pointed out two most prominent changes which had taken place since that election: the first being the tremendous importance of restraint in government spending in our struggle against inflation, and the second the important sharpening up of constitutional responsibilities, as supported by the recent federal-provincial conference and the provisions of the Fiscal Arrangements Act which will take from the federal
Urban Transport
government the tax base previously used to support many provincial programs. The government is withdrawing from that tax base and giving it back to the provinces which have constitutional responsibility in this area.


Mr. Stevens:: For railways?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: For urban transit. The hon. member asks if I am thinking about railways. Responsibility for railways remains under federal jurisdiction. I shall return to that question in a moment.
What about transportation problems which are the responsibility of the federal government? These problems are extensive, including inter-city transit by rail and air, and STOL. We must examine STOL patterns across the country in order to decide how STOL is to be developed. We face enormous problems involving freight, harbours, railways and how to move people from one side of this country to the other. The federal government, with its more limited tax base, faces transportation problems which come right under its own jurisdiction. It is hard pressed to find money and to convince taxpayers to bear the burden for transportation clearly under federal jurisdiction. Has the federal government the right to offer provincial and municipal governments, which have their own tax bases, federal dollars for solving provincial matters? Darcy McKeough, provincial treasurer of Ontario, has said more than once that a national problem is not necessarily and automatically a federal problem.
I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk: urban transit is of national importance. The starvation of the cities for tax revenue is a national problem-a crisis, if one wants to put it that way. But it is not a problem in the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government to solve, not a problem within the tax base limits of the federal government to solve.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: These are not problems which only money will solve.


An hon. Member:: What about your election promises?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Money alone will not solve all Canadian urban transportation problems. The building of urban transit systems will not by itself reduce the amount of automobile traffic. All kinds of statistics compiled in the United States and various metropolitan areas show that urban transit is a legislative, not merely a financial matter. No one is asserting, certainly not hon. members opposite, that the federal government ought to have any jurisdiction to legislate in the area of urban transit. Why is the argument made that we ought to take, and use, federal tax dollars?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Why did you promise them?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not want to make the first half of my speech again, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to show to hon.

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
members that there have been changes since those promises were made.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Not changes in jurisdiction.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There has been a heightened understanding and focusing of the need for levels of government to confine themselves in their own areas. Members on this side, in particular members from the metro Toronto area, are reminding the government that more and more people are moving to the cities. They are arguing that by the year 2000 a very large percentage of our people will be living there, and therefore the federal government should move into this area. I believe the federal government should move into this area: however, it should not do that by writing cheques. It should move into this area by beginning a constitutional review, by finding the kind of jurisdiction it is agreed that municipalities should have, and by asserting that kind of jurisdiction.
I want to note in passing the references that are often made to programs of the federal government in the United States. Whenever there is something new out of Washington to help the cities, the cry is made in Canada that we ought to do exactly the same. I would point out that the constitutional differences between our two countries are enormous. The most prominent among these differences is that the provinces of Canada have a sound constitutional vitality. They have a fiscal base that has no counterpart south of the border.
The federal government in Canada should not be looked at as a source of goodies. I want to deal with goodies in my closing remarks. It is a wrong view of the Canadian constitution to look at the federal government as a source of great revenue and the provincial governments as a source of great need. In fact, the provinces have virtually the same access to the taxpayer as the federal government.
There is a final reason I want to put forward against a special federal program for urban transit. Looking at it from the point of view of the citizen and taxpayer in metropolitan Toronto, a federal urban transit program would cost metro Toronto taxpayers a lot more than a program generated at our own level and paid for either by the municipal government or the provincial government.
I received a telegram from the chairman of the metropolitan Toronto council. He is calling me to a meeting.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will you turn up?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I hope I will be able to turn up. The Chairman says that at the meeting he will want to discuss with us the effect that the broken promise will have "on all of us in metro". I know what the effect of that broken promise will be. The effect will be that an urban transit program in metro will cost less than it would have cost metro taxpayers if the promise of the 1974 election were kept. Why do I say that? I say it because 65 per cent of all public transit trips that are taken in Canada are in Ontario. Thirty per cent, fully half of the Ontario total, of the national total urban transit trips are within metropolitan Toronto. Does any member honestly

believe that the federal government and this parliament could come up with a national program of urban transit that could give 30 per cent of its funding to metropolitan Toronto? Can anyone here imagine the federal government and parliament spending 65 per cent of the resources of a program in the province of Ontario?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why not?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member asks, "Why not?" We have heard the representatives of the city of Edmonton. They stood up this morning and talked about their transit system. We have heard from Winnipeg and the needs of that area. The representative from Owen Sound the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) is arguing that part of this fund has to be spent in Owen Sound. Maybe he is right. If a federal program is established, it has to be a program that has a face in every part of this country.


Walter David Baker: But not two-faced.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Chairman Godfrey is asking what the effect of the broken promise will be on "us". The metro Toronto area generates most-I should not say "most", but I believe 30 per cent of the tax revenue of the federal government. It comes right out of our metropolitan area. That means roughly 30 per cent of every program is financed by metropolitan Toronto taxpayers.
If we launch a national urban transit program, which it is within the jurisdiction of the provincial government to do, it will not be a program that will be able to allocate that much of its resources to metro Toronto. That is why I argue it is no "goodie" for metropolitan Toronto to be the so-called beneficiary of an urban transit program. The right way for us to solve our urban transit problems is at our own level, in metropolitan Toronto, in the province of Ontario where we have the jurisdiction and the same access to the taxpayer as the federal government.
The hon. member for Selkirk reminded me that the municipalities are starved. That is true; they are. Municipalities are also the source of generation of most of the wealth of this country. Some people might argue with me about that, but 1 am prepared to defend it. It is the cities that produce the wealth of our country. Is there not something ironic and wrong in the structure of urban government if it is starved? Who can alter the structure of urban government? It is not this parliament. It is the legislatures of the provinces which have the responsibility for organizing the tax base of their municipalities. They are the ones that should do it.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind hon. members that there are a great many things the federal government is doing and proposes to do in the area of urban transportation. There is not only research. There is more. A program was referred to this morning. An answer by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) referred to the commuter service program which has a budget of $100 million. There is the grade separation program, and the railway relocation program. These three programs, or a combination of them which will be worked out in negotiation
March 4, 1977

with the provinces and other interested groups which over the next five years, will be funded by the federal government to the tune of about $300 million. They are on the table now and they are being discussed. That is $300 million of federal funding from the federal taxpayer that is directed toward problems of transportation in the cities. There has also taken place, since 1974, the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on municipal buses and transit equipment, and the exemption of transit systems from the ten cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline. All these measures are supportive of the problems of urban transportation.
Let us not kid ourselves into believing that under the present constitutional arrangements the federal government could, or should, get a bigger handle on urban transit. These are problems that our constitution asks us to solve at other levels of government. There is always tremendous temptation in a federal system, for each level of government to perceive the need or to see a gap and go leaping into it. Too many of the pills which affect federalism today have arisen because different levels of government have focused upon gaps and jumped in without satisfying themselves as to the extent of their constitutional jurisdiction. I hope the debate today will lead hon. members to recognize that the urban transit problem can be addressed only to a limited extent by the federal government, and that within this area an amount in excess of $300 million has been committed for programs over the next five years while the value of the tax relief to which I referred is $100 million, again over a five-year period.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party welcome the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: All members of the House, regardless of party, can agree with the first part of the motion with respect to the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, the promotion of energy conservation, industrial development and employment opportunities. We in the New Democratic Party would add the need for an integrated approach to the promotion of land use to develop the best use of land for housing needs and to halt the ever increasing encroachment on prime agricultural land. We would also join the Tory opposition in condemnation of the government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of the 1974 Liberal pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transit systems.
Mr. Speaker, we not only condemn the government for these broken election promises but for advocating the principles set forth in Bill C-33, the bill to amend the National Transportation Act. In this area our criticism is not confined to the Liberals; it includes the Tories as well. Both the Liberals and the Tories approve the principle of Bill C-33, which is that the basis for a national transportation policy should be commercial viability and competition, something which amounts only to an affirmation and extension of the national transportation policy
Urban Transport
set out in 1967, a policy which has only increased the mess in which transportation finds itself today. Moreover, it is a line of approach which completely ignores the advice given by the former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, when he recommended that competition should not be the basis of national transport policy.


An hon. Member:: He went to the Senate.


John Gilbert: One of the Conservative members said he went to the Senate. The present minister is ignoring the issue of urban transport. His approach is cold and intellectual and marked by a certain obduracy. We have just heard the parliamentary secretary speak in defence of the indefensible, and I now find myself more than ever convinced that the government must take a hold on transportation otherwise it will continue to be in a mess. The Tories have ignored it. Their transportation critic, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) never challenged the principle of Bill C-33. He dealt only with details, with some of the weaknesses and shortcomings of the system. It is one thing to criticize, and another to offer solutions. No solutions have been forthcoming from either the Tories or the Liberals.
It was the NDP transportation critic, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who struck at the heart of the problem when he stated that the basic concept behind a national transportation policy must be that of a public utility coupled with equality and efficiency, rather than the concept of commercial viability, user-pay, profitability and competition. Only when transport is developed on the basis of a public utility with equality of treatment and accessibility to various modes of transport, no matter where in the country people may live, will we be able to develop an integrated approach to transportation. The Liberals and the Tories are saying, in effect, "Let us pursue private enterprise. Let the profit motive be worshipped, and the public be damned." We in the NDP say, "People first, with equality and efficiency being the goals".
The Liberal backbench revolt in the last few days-I refer to the speeches made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), and now the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), indicate the weakness of their position and, at the same time, their reluctance or inability to force the government to make the necessary changes. The speech of the parliamentary secretary made me realize that this revolt amounts to nothing more than throwing cream puffs at the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I have never heard a weaker defence of the indefensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: More than 75 per cent of Canadians live in urban areas. Canadian cities, both large and small, are growing fast. I would point out that transportation is not a self-sustaining industry. In the four most important modes of travel, revenue as a percentage of total cost is as follows: air, 31 per cent; road, 64 per cent; rail, 74 per cent; marine, 19 per cent.

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
If those figures mean anything, it is that the government should take a firm position with regard to transport and ensure that attention is paid first and foremost to the needs of Canadians, the development of the cities, the development of industry and the increasing of employment opportunities.
Hon. members can see from those percentages that all those four modes of travel are sustained only by a massive input of public money. Air travel revenue constitutes only 31 per cent of the total cost, which means that 69 per cent is contributed by the federal government. With regard to road transport, 36 per cent of the total cost comes from the government, and 26 per cent of the cost of railway operations comes from government by way of subsidies. The marine transportation system is the most dramatic of all. Only 19 per cent of the cost is contributed directly by the public; the remaining 81 per cent given by the federal government.
I would now direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the pledges made by the Liberal party in 1974 and since broken. In 1974 the Prime Minister pledged there would be financial aid for transportation systems available to municipalities right across Canada; specifically, that the federal government would pay 100 per cent of the cost of new commuter vehicles manufactured in this country, 25 per cent of the cost of all public transit vehicles manufactured in Canada for use within cities, and 50 per cent of the cost of new stations and platforms as part of commuter systems. The government further pledged the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax on municipal vehicles, and it was estimated by government spokesmen that this would assist the municipalities financially to the extent of $300 million over a five-year period. Hearing the parliamentary secretary speak this afternoon, one would have thought these problems did not exist in 1974. But they exist today as much as they did in 1974.
The cynical approach of the government in making this announcement immediately prior to the election in 1974 indicates the lack of faith that Canadians are developing in the promises made by the federal government. In fairness to the government, the 12 per cent sales tax on municipal transit vehicles was removed. On July 30, 1975, there was the announcement of a $20 million capital aid program over five years, beginning in 1977, for commuter systems. However, this aid specifically excludes assistance for local bus, light rapid transit or subway systems. All of these are very necessary in our urban centres.
Expenditures by the government in the 1977-78 estimates set forth contributions for planning studies, capital assistance programs and urban commuter services and amount to $7,250,000, compared to $250,000 in the 1976-77 estimates. Contributions for research and demonstration projects amount to $886,000, compared to zero in the 1976-77 estimates. This makes a total of $8,136,000 in the 1977-78 estimates compared to $250,000 in the 1976-77 estimates.
May I remind the House that the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities estimates that close to $4 billion in

urban transit investment will be required over the next five years. A 25 per cent segment of this five-year requirement would amount to $1 billion. The estimates for 1977-78 amount, as I say, to $8,136,000. This illustrates the dramatic difference between the aid requested by the mayors and municipalities compared to the amounts in the estimates set forth by the government. This level of investment, it is estimated by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, is required just to maintain the current auto-transit ridership ratio. In 1974 Statistics Canada estimated that only 16 per cent of trips to and from work had been made by transit. Just think of that for a moment, Mr. Speaker, only 16 per cent of our industrial workers use urban transit across this country. Is it any wonder that our major highways are clogged every morning from Monday to Friday with workers driving their cars to work? Is it any wonder that we need a fast, efficient and comfortable service to transport workers to and from work?
I should like to dwell for a couple of minutes on the impact motor vehicles have on the environment of our major cities. In the transportation sector the automobile is the major producer of noxious materials. The total pollutants per seat mile by mode are as follows: for an automobile the carbon monoxide rating is 120; for air travel it is 105; for bus travel it is three; and for rail it is only one. This indicates how necessary it is to develop a rail program to cut down on the amount of pollutants in the air. But there has been no incentive on the part of the government to develop rail passenger services across the country; in fact, we have had the contrary situation. The government has discouraged this and has abandoned rail lines in many parts of the country. Is it any wonder that the people of Canada are getting sick and tired of the broken promises of this government? Is it any wonder that the municipal authorities in Toronto became annoyed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) made a speech in Toronto two weeks ago in which he said the government was cutting back the $300 million grant to municipalities to develop urban transportation?
With regard to restraint, I suggest we should consider the proposal that has been put forward by all members of the House, and which last night was put forward by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), that there be restraint priorities. When I think of some of the priorities of this government in the form of the privileges they have been giving corporations by way of tax advantages, and then the government has the audacity to cut back on rail passenger and other modes of transportation, I realize that the government's priorities are not very sound. In fact, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) became very disturbed when she saw what was happening regarding transit on the west coast.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: I still am.


John Gilbert: She says she still is. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) agreed with the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) last night regarding the horrendous travel problems
March 4, 1977

Vancouver is facing. Yet the priorities of this government are to give tax advantages to corporations and to consider the transit priorities of industrial workers in our cities of low rating. Let me outline some of the results of the low priority that the government has placed on transportation. Ever since I became a member of the House in 1965 members from Newfoundland have been raising the question of the "Bullet". There is need for a massive infusion of money so that Newfoundland can develop modes of transport to promote growth of industrial strategies and to cut down on the massive amount of unemployment in the maritimes. It is a national disgrace to have unemployment in the maritimes which ranges anywhere from 15 per cent to 20 per cent.
The maritime premiers have been taken in by the arguments of the Minister of Transport who has sold out the people of the maritimes. The cut in rail transportation will affect the major cities of Sydney, Halifax and Saint John, and this is a national disgrace in view of the high energy costs the maritimes are facing. Gasoline within the next few months will probably retail in the maritimes at $1.25 a gallon, yet the federal government is putting stress on the provision of bus services and other modes rather than rail service. The Minister of Transport has given a treat to Quebec by handing over the major rail line between Quebec and Montreal to the CPR while totally ignoring the CNR.
There has been a multiplicity of urban transit problems in the main urban centres of Ontario, especially in the city of Toronto. The CNR has built the CN tower at a cost of $60 million-$50 million of that amount, I understand, being financed by one of the banks at 11 per cent. That is Senator Marchand's monument in Toronto to national unity. The CN had no right to become involved in the CN tower business. The money should have been applied to improving commuter services within the city.
Then there was Pickering airport, which many members of the Tory party supported. STOL aircraft are being promoted by the Ontario government for the Toronto airport. We need good and efficient services in the west, not rail abandonment. In British Columbia we need a solution to the mess in Vancouver and a solution to the boat service problem of the people in coastal areas.
I note that my time is nearly up. There is need for an infrastructure in Canada to develop an urban strategy with regard to transportation, industrial strategy, employment and energy. I see nothing in the federal government's program which will tackle these problems. Every step taken is retrogressive, and I see very little or no support coming from the Progressive Conservative party. What hurts me more than anything, before I finish-


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


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) who introduced the motion today. This week the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was quite busy. Indeed his bill was introduced and I spoke on it March 1, so I did not expect we would be dealing with transport today. Fortunately the minister keeps his cool, Mr. Speaker, because he was away on March 1 and he still is not here today. In any event he must surely read Hansard and he will realize that it was quite an important week for him.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Selkirk reads as follows:
That in view of the desirability of encouraging an integrated approach to urban planning and development, and of promoting energy conservation, industrial development and employment, this House condemns the Liberal government's deliberate and cynical repudiation of its 1974 election pledge to give comprehensive and extensive aid to municipalities for the improvement of urban transport systems.
At the outset, while hearing the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), I sincerely believed he was simply going into a partisan criticism of Liberal policies. Of course in 1974 the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all cabinet ministers who travelled across the province made promises and 1 feel sure they would not know themselves how many such promises they made. Of course those promises misled the people, as we now realize. The parliamentary secretary to the minister just said that the 1974 commitments have to be reviewed. So those promises were made in 1974 and they just now start reviewing them to determine whether they were sound or not.
Well, Mr. Speaker, not satisfied with stating those promises had to be reviewed, he said the delay in keeping them was due to inflation. They have been fortunate these last few years that the term "inflation" is in the dictionary, because everytime something goes wrong the government use it as an excuse. We have no money because we have inflation, there is unemployment because we have inflation, and the government does nothing because we have inflation.
Speaking of misrepresentation, it was said that the right hon. Prime Minister misled the people. Well, people in Roberval, my constituency, can testify to that. During the last campaign eight or ten ministers, if I remember right, came one after the other making promises, very often as far fetched as unpractical. But some were quite practical. There was among others, and that had been promised for quite some time, the upgrading of Roberval airport. The then minister of finance, Mr. Turner I believe, and Mr. Marchand put their heads at stake, pledging before the people of the area they would retire from politics if that project was not implemented. We now realize that they paid with their heads, because both of them left politics. The former to go into the private sector, the latter to get some rest in the Senate. But, Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the airport. It has been left as it was, to deteriorate day after day.
This tends to prove what candidates will do during an election campaign. How can the people still trust that govern-

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
ment? No wonder it is less and less popular, because the people are not as apolitical as we believe. They are now very politics conscious, and rightly so, and they need to be.
The emphasis in today's motion is on urban transport, but I see that the $290 million promised in 1974 were to meet the needs of municipalities, not only urban needs. Before I received the motion I had just read an article in Le Devoir of yesterday entitled:
Urban transport: forgotten promises?
Two Ontario Liberal backbenchers denounced the federal government yesterday for reneging on 1974 election promises to assist municipalities to pay for urban transit.
Frank Philbrook and David Collcnette threatened to withdraw support from major transportation legislation before the Commons if the government does not at least partly fulfil the 1974 promises which in total involved expenditure of $290 million.
Several other Liberal backbenchers applauded the Philbrook warning, underlining the mood of resentment within the Liberal caucus over second thoughts that the government is having transit aid.
Earlier, during the daily question period. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said cabinet is still considering the commitment, made a few days before the July, 1974, election in which the Liberals regained their majority in the Commons.
It was Mr. Trudeau's only response to New Democrat Leader Edward Broadbent who tried to find out whether or not the Liberals were backing down on the promise.
Last week Finance Minister Donald Macdonald said the $290 million was left out of government spending plans because some projects had to be sacrificed in the name of restraint.
The statement drew objections from urban-area MPs in all three major parties.
Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the hon. member for Selkirk, I got the impression that he wanted the federal government to be directly involved in urban transit. Everybody knows I have always been opposed to the federal government taking over the jurisdiction of the provinces in this area. That is what I was afraid of when I was listening to the hon. member's speech earlier on. But fortunately the secretary of the minister Came and dotted the i's, reminding the House that this was a problem of provincial jurisdiction. This complicates the issue, of course, since the federal government is being asked to help finance urban transit, that is, to intervene in a provincial jurisdiction.
I think this is the main drawback of today's balance-sheet federalism. In order to help the province and because it has taxation powers, the federal government often violates the essential principles of our constitution against the will of the provinces which are opposed to it, and rightly so. To correct this lack of co-ordination the present government, not being able to intervene in provincial jurisdiction by the main door, has entered by the back door. This is how the famous winter work programs were created-unforgettable these were-and I think that hon. members still remember those winter works when people were made to work to do nothing.
Let us talk about the local initiatives projects, the somewhat improved Opportunities for Youth Program, and now, Canada Works and Young Canada Works. These aim at creating employment at the municipal level. The intent is good, but the

action taken to achieve it is not so good. If we wanted to be more logical and more consistent with confederate standards, we would develop a formula which, while creating manpower, while helping municipalities within federal-provincial agreements, would still respect the rights of everyone concerned.
The parliamentary secretary of the minister now tells us that the government cannot fulfill its campaign promises to help the municipalities since it has had to restrict its budget because of inflation. In other words, the government does not have that much money any more, but the provinces have still less. What surprises me is that the government, through the Department of Manpower and Immigration, will spend $200, $300 or $400 million for programs like Canada Works, for projects who often are not productive for the municipalities. I therefore wonder why the government did not simply give to the provinces the $290 million promised three years ago.
All municipalities have problems concerning urban transportation, infrastructures, environment, sewage treatment, municipal roads and so on. The provinces would need those millions to meet the needs of their municipalities. Why does this government not give back to the provinces the money that they collected themselves? It is the workers of each province who have paid the promised millions. Why does the government not give them back to them? In this way, for once, the federal government would act in accordance with the rules of the constitution, and peace would come back in federal-provincial relations. To state now that we do not have any money to give to the provinces is simply to laugh at the population because we are spending indirectly millions which should have been given directly to the provinces. And after this, we say that the provinces do not want to come to any agreement. How can it be possible to have any discussion? We hold a lot of federal-provincial meetings, and always to no purpose. Why? The people know why.
I say that the provinces, and the province of Quebec especially, can no longer wait for the unilateral decisions of the government, and no longer want to. Let us talk about infrastructures for developing cities like the ones in my area. Cities now spend 40 per cent of their budget simply to pay the interest on the accumulated debt. How can they provide services for an ever-increasing population?
For many years we have had the problem of sewage which is largely responsible for the pollution of our rivers. At each election, the federal government which still has the biggest taxation powers promises to help the provinces by giving them back a larger part of the taxes it raises in those same provinces. The same goes for municipal roads as good roads are a prerequisite for urban transit.
The minister's secretary just told us that Ottawa cannot be said to have the largest source of income while provinces have great needs. Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of nerve to say that because everybody is aware that Ottawa has so much taxation powers that again this year it will collect more than $45 billion in taxes from the people of Canada. And, when it must give some back to the provinces, according to the agreements, it wants to administer those funds instead of giving free rein to the provincial governments.
March 4, 1977

And this government pretends it want to preserve provincial autonomy! The only help it gives to municipalities is to reduce or withdraw unfair taxes as the 12 per cent levy on the purchase of buses or the redemption of the discount on gas and the government calls that helping municipalities. What a joke!
It does them less harm than in the past years, but nothing in this year's budget will lighten the financial burden of our municipalities. I see that my allotted time is expired so I shall conclude my remarks.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in the debate on the motion before us today I should first like to compliment the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) on an excellent motion and an excellent speech introducing the motion. That hon. member may temporarily be seated in the back row of our benches, but judging from today's performance he is equal to at least any member on the front bench on the government side.


Walter David Baker: Don't underrate him. He is better.


Otto Emil Lang: And twice as good as one-third of the members over there.


An hon. Member:: That is all that row over there.


Otto Emil Lang: Maybe two exceptions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am pleased that at last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has walked into the Chamber. After 1 finish I hope he will try to explain his department's role in reneging on urban transit, which is under discussion today. Perhaps it is not only the Minister of Transport we should hear from but also the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) rather than his parliamentary secretary. I think the attendance in this House today by government members and the fact that to this moment not one cabinet minister has had enough interest to speak on the motion, spells out the degree of concern and interest the government has in urban transit problems across the nation. One of the members, and perhaps he has a good point, has stated the reason cabinet ministers are not speaking today is that they are scared of the revolt in the Liberal backbenches. I thank him for the cue and I do not doubt that is part of the front bench anxiety at the present time.
The only member to give us the Liberal version of why there has been reneging on the $290 million that was committed for urban transit during the June and July, 1974, election campaign is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan). Although all of us would agree that parliament becomes a bit of an Alice in Wonderland at times, I have not encountered anything that should be included in an Alice in Wonderland story to the degree that the discourse of the parliamentary secretary should today.
In effect he said to the people of the Toronto area, "Be thankful we did not honour that promise for the $290 million that we put forth in order to get re-elected because we are
Urban Transport
really saving you money. Toronto pays 30 per cent of the total tax revenue that goes to Ottawa. There is no way you would get that 30 per cent of $290 million, so indirectly we are saving you money because if we paid something less than 30 per cent it would mean you were subsidizing the rest of the country."
Let us gather our wits, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is telling us that is the reason for justifying a breach of promise in the 1974 campaign. That is bad enough. When we check, however, we find his figures are totally wrong. Toronto does not pay 30 per cent of the tax revenue that is "pouring into Ottawa", to use his phrase. With all due respect he must know that. The information is available in the publication "Taxation Statistics-1976 Edition" issued by Revenue Canada. That shows clearly that the amount Toronto taxpayers pay in personal income tax is 15.8 per cent, not 30 per cent. Toronto people pay 15.8 per cent of the total income tax that pours into Ottawa, and their gross income is 13'A per cent of the national total. Those are the facts.
To use the parliamentary secretary's line of reasoning, if Toronto got 15.8 per cent of the $290 million they would have received $45,800,000 had the government followed through on its promise. If you look at the whole Toronto area, you find that by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) breaking his promise he is not only cheating Toronto out of that amount but Mississauga out of $4,408,000, Oakville, $1,508,000, Barrie, $609,000, Brampton, $1,015,000, Oshawa, $1,856,000, and Whitby, $493,000. If you want to follow the parliamentary secretary's line of reasoning, those are the amounts the municipalities were entitled to out of the $290 million that was waved in front of the people to help the government get re-elected and mismanage the country. That totals $55,689,000 that the Liberals have short changed the Toronto area with respect to the commitments they offered in the last election campaign.
The parliamentary secretary says times have changed. What times have changed? Is the parliamentary secretary referring to the fact that times have changed in de Havilland aircraft, which happens to be in his riding and which the government bought in May, 1974, barely six weeks before the election, paying $35 million for it, and since has poured $115 million into it-is that the time he says has changed? Is it the fact that his is an "I am all right Jack" attitude with de Havilland to the tune of $150 million in his riding, even though he says there is no money to help with urban transportation in the Toronto area, and I have indicated the area is entitled to at least $55,600,000?
In short, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this government has no proper answer to their reneging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The parliamentary secretary makes the odd argument that somehow or other the federal government should not be interfering with municipal and provincial governments, but Why did it not think that in 1974?


Walter David Baker: There was an election in 1974.

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why did they come to the conclusion this was none of their business? If they feel they are not involved, why are we being required in the current estimates to put up $15 million to $17 million to support the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and his department? What is he supposed to be doing if the federal government has no role to play in urban transportation in areas such as Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal, and others that need this type of development?
Actually we know what happened during the last campaign. On instructions from Keith Davey, the campaign director of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was instructed to promise anything which would help to get him re-elected.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that famous statement when Mr. Davey was quoted as saying that he told the Prime Minister in Vancouver that if it would help to get votes, "You had better get down and shine boots, if that will help. In short, do whatever you can and promise whatever you like in order to get re-elected."


Walter David Baker: An example of power corrupting.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made reference to the government being active in certain fields. For example he referred to STOL. Naturally the parliamentary secretary would feel kindly toward STOL. The Dash-7 is being manufactured by de Havilland, the plant that happens to be in his riding. Naturally he is warmly disposed to the $115 million of subsidy which has been poured into that near Crown corporation. But I ask you, is that the priority this government should be following?


Walter David Baker: No.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Would you like to see de Havilland closed down, treated as the Avro-Arrow? That is how the Tories approach aviation.


Mr. Fairweather:: We did what you didn't have the guts to do.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we are saying that when moneys are to be expended at the federal level, the government of the day must choose its priorities. What we are saying is that there is an urgent priority in the Toronto area, and in many other urban areas, for better transit. The government promised to assist with the development of that urban transit, and what we are now suggesting is that they have reneged on their promise, to the disadvantage of the commuters.


Walter David Baker: Reprehensible!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having said that, I do not feel that the government is acknowledging the request of the chairman of

the Metropolitan Toronto area, Mr. Godfrey. He asked many of us to attend in Toronto at 8 a.m., Monday, March 14, and see for themselves the present state of transit activity at Union Station and the general surrounding area.
I do not think it is enough for the parliamentary secretary to stand up, read that telegram inviting him there, and simply come back with the odd argument that by reneging on the promise to which Mr. Godfrey refers, he is somehow saving that area money.
I would suggest that the government is playing a political shell game with the transportation strategy of our cities. Two weeks ago the Minister of Finance delivered what he believed to be a death blow to the $290 million in aid to urban transit. No less than four members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, have repeatedly assured us that the money would be made available. On Wednesday the government floundered again, and the Prime Minister stated that the on again off again promise is not unequivocally dead, it is merely before the cabinet for study. We have heard that song and dance before; hence it is no surprise that urban planners from St. John's to Victoria remain skeptical as to the fate of several urban transit projects which are hanging in the balance until the government decides it will honour its commitments.
I remind hon. members that the former minister of transport, Senator Marchand, told us 18 months ago that this very issue then, and I stress "then", was before cabinet. On June 16, 1975, as reported in Hansard at page 6795 he said, in reply to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
We have not changed our opinion on that, Mr. Speaker. A paper was prepared for cabinet and is before cabinet now. Let us sec how much money they give us-because there is money involved. As far as policy is concerned, I will not backtrack.
Nothing substantial has ever come of that paper, just as nothing substantial has come of the Prime Minister's promise to finance 100 per cent of the cost of Canadian-made commuter vehicles. The whole thing is clearly an election bon-bon which the government trots out when the heat is on, and then forgets when it thinks it can get away with it. But we on this side of the House have not forgotten.
When the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), the then president of the treasury board, nearly three and a half years ago said that the government, and I quote, "would live up to its obligations even if it took up to four years," we remembered. In response to a question I put to that same minister in October of 1974, as reported on page 668 of Hansard, the minister stated, and 1 quote:
The political party of which I am a member has made other promises and the government will implement them in due course. We have stated that we will do this and that, and take four years to live up to our mandate. We have said: 'Don't worry about it, we will live up to our obligations.'
We remember these countless other promises, and on behalf of 75 per cent of our population which lives in our larger cities we now urge the government to make good these promises, because urban transit is not just an election "goody". To the millions who travel in our urban areas in rush hour it is a vital
March 4, 1977

necessity. This promise should not be allowed to go the way of the Prime Minister's promise not to impose wage and price controls, or his assurance that separatism is dead in Quebec. This promise must be made to stick. In Toronto alone, nearly $200 million in transit modernization awaits the government's decision to keep its side of this commitment.
The proposed terminal improvements program, which is intended to be the hub of an efficient metro-wide transit system, the Streetsville-Milton GO line, the Lakeshore extension, the Scarborough transit, and the cross-town line, are all in jeopardy following the government's broken promises.
The finance minister, who apparently sometimes speaks for the government, and sometimes does not, says the government cannot honour its commitments because of restraint; but this is a callous excuse. To date the government has spent $110.4 million for land acquisition and property management on the Pickering airport site which the people of Ontario do not even want. This sum is 11 times the federal government's total contribution to date to public transit in Ontario. If restraint is the number one priority before the government, then let it, as has been suggested in committee from time to time, sell the Pickering site and turn over the revenue and remaining funds to urban transit.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Ontario chose that site.


John Gilbert: It was only the provincial election. The Tories approved it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary was not listening to me. 1 am not commenting on who chose, or who didn't. I am simply saying, you have a lot of land down there. Liquidate it if you are short of funds, and use the proceeds for developing urban transit for the Toronto area.
That would be better than creating another white elephant like Mirabel. Mr. Speaker, Mirabel lost $130 million in two years, yet the administration is determined to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing airports which are very likely not needed. For example, air traffic at Toronto's Malton airport may even be decreasing at the present time. I would stress that the money could best be used to serve the larger segment of our population which needs commuter service to get to and from work, and not the relatively wealthy people who use air services in this country. But even these figures do not illustrate the ill-advised economics of this latest cop-out. I would stress that the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk refers to energy conservation. In this connection I would point out that Kirk Foley, the president of the Urban Transportation Corporation, has said there have been broken promises. It follows that this would impede future prospects in terms of transportation strategies. I used the figures in the Porter study on energy, and Mr. Foley estimates that 25 per cent of all petroleum consumed in Canada is used to fuel urban automobiles. By 1985 our petroleum needs will approach $5 billion annually, based on current prices and use trends. The present Minister of Finance knows this only too well because he used to be the minister of energy. He knows the importing cost is
Urban Transport
going to mount with regard to the fuel that will be needed to power the urban automobiles that are needed in commuter transit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may, however, continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a timely one. It puts before the House of Commons a very important question. Up to this point, however, we have only heard one side of the story, that presented by the urban members. Many of us are not urban members and there are a lot of people we represent who are not from the urban areas.
This is a good motion. It deserves serious consideration and serious answers. Some answers have been given. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that the matter will again be taken under consideration. I hope it is because any promise must be considered as serious.
Many members of this House represent areas that do not have the amenities of the urban areas. These members will have to take a very serious look at what would happen if the promise made in this instance came into effect. How would it affect those of us who represent areas that do not have any type of transportation? I refer to areas such as those represented by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), and the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).
The type of transportation that urban members would like to see added to or expanded is a wonderful thing. However, what about those from the maritimes to British Columbia who do not have any type of transportation? How do they get from their municipalities where they live and work to the large urban centres?
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) made the point that 75 per cent of our population today lives in the cities. It appears as though that will increase to 90 per cent by the 1980's and 1990's. This House of Commons should look for ways to get that growth away from the cities to the suburban areas and to the country where there is a work force and opportunities for industry to move out of the large metropolitan areas and expand.
We should get some of these people back into areas that are waiting for them. Our young people are more and more moving away from the land, the areas of opportunity in the rural communities, into the large cities for their education and livelihood. However, they are not returning. We have to reverse that trend and get our young men and women back to the areas they have left.
I agree with some of those who represent the urban communities. I do not blame them for standing up in this House in an attempt to get the best urban transport, commuter systems, and everything else. However, as a representative of an area

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
that does not have those types of commuter systems, and everything and access to the theatre, arts and business, I am going to make our wishes known. If the government is thinking of putting $290 million into urban transportation and commuter systems, we in the rural areas want some of that money to go into our areas as well in order that we can get to the large urban centres.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made a strong statement about the $150 million that has gone into the de Havilland corporation. A good percentage of that will come back out of that corporation in business and taxes from the workers. That corporation is not in my constituency, but perhaps I can come to their defence. The de Havilland corporation might just provide the outlying areas of this country with the type of transportation they need to get into the urban centres. These people may want to get into the urban areas, but they sure as heck want to get back out and back home. However, there is now no way of doing that.
Perhaps the hon. member for York-Simcoe was simply talking about a business firm that was not in his constituency. I do not know. However, if we can get Canadian companies which deal in this type of higher technology to improve and expand, and bring into production new methods of transportation that we can use not only in this country but around the world-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Have you not got railways up your way?


Crawford Douglas: Certainly, but we have not had any passenger trains running there for about seven years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell the government.


Crawford Douglas: I do tell the government. The hon. member for York-Simcoe talked about this being an Alice in Wonderland situation. It might be. However, I would say that the hon. member for York-Simcoe is the best indication of a Mad Hatter that I have ever seen. He runs around this Alice in Wonderland place taking a stand on both sides of the picket fence. He should realize how dangerous that can be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tweedledum and Tweedledee.


Crawford Douglas: No one can stand up and say cut back; and then the next day say, spend more, spend more.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have told you where you can do both.


Crawford Douglas: de Havilland and other companies have developed some expertise in the area of transportation. I want to encourage the development and use of that expertise here in Canada. The hon. member for York-Simcoe does not seem to believe in the expertise that was developed in the STOL system.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: How many planes have you sold?


Crawford Douglas: We certainly will not get any more orders if members opposite continue to stand up in this place and degrade it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You have sold one plane so far.


Crawford Douglas: It is apparent that you will not help us sell any more. The opposition want to know this, that, and the other thing about why we are not paying out money for urban transit. If the money that had been promised had been put into urban transit, members from every rural municipality in Canada would be ready to stand up-


Walter David Baker: What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say about rural members in 1974?


Crawford Douglas: I know the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will stand up and make a speech. He is usually pretty good at that, and at other times as well when people are not too interested in what he has to say.
The situation which faces us is certainly one of priority. It is an issue we should be looking at right now. I am not saying we should not put some money into urban transportation. Urban transportation deserves some money; nevertheless, there are other places where money is needed as well. It is needed to improve transportation facilities from coast to coast and for the provision of better services between the urban centres and outlying regions.
The hon. member who spoke for the New Democratic Party had some reasonable points to make, but he made at least one statement with which I could not agree. The socialists seem to think nothing is worth doing unless it can be done by the state. They believe it should be state operated and state financed, and that if there is any profit it should go to the state. I can tell him now that I am in favour of private enterprise. I always have been and I always will be. The ideas put forward by the New Democratic Party sound wonderful until you go around the country and see that nothing which is state operated ever makes a profit, and that whatever is produced usually costs, in the end, three times as much as it is worth.
I should like to set out the position of those of us who come from rural areas and who want better transportation in those areas, as well as improved amenities for those who must commute to and from work. Recently, a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission was handed down with regard to a proposal put forward by Eastern Provincial Airlines in the maritimes. I am not happy with that decision, Mr. Speaker, because it means that a proposal which could have provided better service for the outlying areas of all the maritime provinces, using Canadian-built airplanes and Canadian-built technology, is not being proceeded with. Since the turning down of this proposal by the Commission, I understand that Eastern Provincial has withdrawn its order for at least two of the aircraft which were to have been used. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) say the other night that the premiers themselves are seeking to encourage a change of mind on the part of the CTC with a view to having the proposal accepted.
March 4, 1977

The hon. member for York-Simcoe made certain statements about the money which the government has promised to make available. In the circumstances, exactly how would a federal urban transit program result in a transfer of funds to the government of Ontario? The most obvious example consists of aid to commuter rail. Our election platform proposed, among other things, a 100 per cent federal subsidy for commuter rail equipment. Since the government of Ontario is presently responsible for GO Transit equipment costs, implementing this part of the election platform literally would result in a simple transfer of funds to the province of Ontario.
Ontario has also taken a position which would maximize the revenue transfer to the provincial treasury from implementation of other possible measures of federal aid to urban transit. Thus, both the present and previous Ontario ministers of transportation and communications have indicated that they would not pass on to transit systems more than a part, perhaps a small part, of the 25 per cent subsidy for the purchase of urban transit equipment (other than commuter rail) mentioned in our election platform.
I cannot say that I blame Ontario for this stand. James Rhodes-when he was the Ontario minister of transportation and communications-pointed out that adding a 25 per cent federal subsidy for urban transit equipment to Ontario's 75 per cent subsidy would lead transit authorities to act as if they were in possession of "throwaway buses". At the same time you can see that the present provincial urban transit program is extremely generous. I wonder if it is our job to take the government of Ontario off the hook for the commitments they have made to urban transit.
Essentially the same problem of a fiscal transfer arises wherever there is extensive provincial aid to urban transit. I am distributing a table, prepared last year which indicates that extensive provincial support for urban transit is not confined to Ontario, but is evident in all provinces having substantial urban populations. The result is that we have no assurance whatsoever that federal expenditures will add significantly to what would otherwise have been spent on urban transit. We have no commitment from any of the provinces that when the money is there it will all go where we want it to go.
Moreover, the expenditure is not "capped". Does it mean the taxpayers of Canada are to continue year after year to provide buses, streetcars, and new subway trains for the urban centres?
I want to know, first of all, where the money will go. I want an assurance from the provincial governments that they will not divert that money to anything else, and I want an assurance from the federal government that there will be a "cap" placed on this spending so that money which comes in from taxpayers right across the country will be spent equitably. We are admitting, of course, that most of the revenue derived from taxes does come from urban dwellers, but we want a fair proportion of this money to be used to provide adequate transportation for the rural areas of Canada.
Urban Transport
We want services of the type EPA suggested in the mari-times, the type of transportation many people in northern Ontario enjoy now with the NORONTAR system. I want to see services of this kind extended into southern and southwestern Ontario. Sure, we have buses-one a day. If you want to go to Toronto from my constituency, you have to go one day and return the next. Some people might like to go in the morning and come back the same day. I should like to see people in the riding represented by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) have access to fast commuter travel, the type of system they have in northern Ontario. We should press forward with schemes such as this, as well as with rapid transit systems.
Finally, we have to realize that there is only so much money to go around. We can make promises. All political parties make promises. Some of them are good, others are not so good. The Ontario political machine made promises about a thing called the Spadina ditch. Later on they found it was not such a good idea after all, so right now they have the ditch and they are likely to continue to have it for a long time.
We talk about Pickering Airport. That airport was agreed to fully by the Ontario government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No way!


Crawford Douglas: Your friends in the Ontario government were in favour of it, too.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Don't mislead the House.


Crawford Douglas: They selected the area and were in full agreement.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They never said an airport was needed.


Crawford Douglas: All of a sudden they changed their minds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Do not mislead the House.


Crawford Douglas: If 1 have learned anything from the hon. member for York-Simcoe it is probably how to mislead the House and get away with it. 1 think basically this is a good motion because it will enable us to find some of the answers to a promise that was made.


Mr. Clarke:: And broken.


Crawford Douglas: I agree that the promise was made and, as the Prime Minister has said, I think it should be looked at.


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


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the mover of the motion, my colleague from Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), has outlined the situation so far as the government's performance is concerned-promising things that either
3690

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
it did not know about or which it was unwilling to deliver on later. I do not want to dwell on those promises because the people of Vancouver are used to this kind of treatment from this government. They remember only too well that just two years ago, while the government was spending $5 million in an eastern city building a parking garage at the airport to cut the walking distance for passengers in half, the government was closing down the garage at Vancouver International Airport and extending the parking lot, thus doubling the walking distance to the terminal, resulting in so much inconvenience to air passengers, that the government was forced to install a shuttle-bus service which is in operation to this day, and probably will be forever.
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) was trying to justify the government's action on the basis that changes had been made. Everybody knows that changes have been made. In the urban areas there are more people now, there are more cars now, there are more problems now, and there are more broken promises now. The only thing there is less of is government concern for the people who live in the urban areas of the country.
Changes have also been made to the rail service. Ton miles is one example. The ton miles originating by rail in western Canada have increased by 62 per cent in the period between 1968 and 1972, including an increase of 106 per cent in British Columbia, while the all-Canada average increased by 35 per cent in that same period, lest anyone think that parallels do not exist.
To show the concern in British Columbia for this topical issue today, 1 want to read the House a telegram that was sent by the mayor of Vancouver to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) just about ten days ago on February 23. The mayor of Vancouver said this:
Strongly urge your serious attention to problem of urban transit and long overdue need for federal support. Light rapid transit system for greater Vancouver is among critical current priorities but without federal financial backing impossible.
That is signed by Mayor Jack Volrich of Vancouver.
Vancouver is not the only body to show its concern. Two years ago the Progressive Conservative Party sent a force out to Vancouver and other cities to study the urban transportation situation. I went with that group to the city of Vancouver and to other western cities, and we met with officials of the greater Vancouver regional district as well as officials of the province and of the city itself. The Greater Vancouver Regional District, for the information of hon. members, is composed of elected representatives from 17 lower mainland communities of British Columbia which make up what people generally regard as greater Vancouver. It was obvious that lack of consultation was the problem. The municipalities were consulting with each other through the GVRD, and that group was consulting with the province, and 1 will say something about that in a moment. What was missing was federal government input.
When we were in Vancouver in 1975 we heard of plans afoot for satellite cities. For example, the British Columbia Telephone Company has already built its new head office

building in Burnaby to try to take the pressure off downtown Vancouver. Industry is being moved out so that commuting is reduced, and it is my understanding that even the new taxation data centre of Revenue Canada will be located in Surrey.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District, as long ago as 1971, agreed that public transportation should be a regional function, and consequently it applied to the province for letters patent to assume the responsibility. This has not been granted, for a variety of reasons. Aside from financing issues, one of the most basic problems still requiring resolution is a definition of the respective roles of the province and GVRD in setting transportation policies and priorities and carrying out programs.
The transportation committee of the GVRD board had recommended in a 1971 report, "Regional Transportation as a GVRD Function", that the GVRD should seek responsibility for operating the public transit system. It is now focusing its attention on the region's future role in transportation planning rather than operation, and may recommend that the region seek letters patent for only this aspect of the transportation function. Meanwhile the GVRD is working with the bureau of transit services on establishing new bus routes.
The bureau of transit services was created in February, 1973, as a branch of the provincial department of municipal affairs. It is headed by the director of transit services who has the rank of an associate deputy minister. The bureau has nine employees studying this question, and their mandate is to determine public transportation requirements within and between the various regions of the province; to advise the government on policy matters related to the provision of public transportation in the province; and to implement public transport programs in the province. Accordingly, in conjunction with involved municipalities and the GVRD, as well as B.C. Hydro, the bureau is seeking to improve and extend existing bus services and other transportation facilities in the area. I cite that at such length only to indicate that people are working together on the local scene, and that what is missing is federal government'input.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District publishes a bulletin every month, and in its most recent issue of January, 1977, it says that it has now called for the establishment of a ten year road and transit improvement program co-ordinated by a provincial-regional transportation organization. This proposal is now being submitted to the general public, local councils, and to the provincial government for their reaction. Again I say that the obvious missing link here is the federal government. Everyone at the local level is working together; the federal government has made and broken its promise to be involved, and everyone else has decided they just cannot wait any longer.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District also realized that if nothing was done to solve the worsening transportation problem, the liveability of the region would suffer, pollution would get worse, and energy conservation would not take place. Their final but significant conclusion was this:
March 4, 1977

Perhaps the most significant effect is that the average travel speed in the region during rush hours will drop to 17 miles an hour within three years and the average for buses to eight miles an hour. This drop, caused by congestion, will cost commuting drivers about $120 a year more in gasoline, which is more than it would cost to carry out needed improvements to the transportation system.
We have heard a few times from the government about the energy saving and cost saving measures it wants the people to take-although the government does not want to take them- but it will not carry out promises it has made to the people, which could be more than offset by the cost of the waste if nothing is done.
Local groups are also considering expanding their cross-harbour ferry, which is due to start again early this year. They are going to start commuter trains from Port Coquitlam to downtown Vancouver with stops along the way, and the track for this route already exists. It is quite interesting that 20 to 25 years ago there was a cross-harbour ferry system. In fact at one time there were two of them. Now the in-thing is crossharbour ferry service, and that will start again in about a month.
Until 1954 one could take a fast electric tram along the grade from New Westminster to Vancouver. Fortunately the grade is still there, and that is what the GVRD is planning to put back to work.
It is not as if there is no evidence that the federal government wanted to get involved in this. I refer hon. members to a book I found in the library. It appears that it has been languishing there for about three and one-half years without ever having been taken out. It is a book of background papers prepared for the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities in Calgary, 1973. To show what concern the federal government once thought it had I would like to read the following paragraphs:
The very nature of a constantly evolving economic and social structure in the West calls for continuous and dynamic means of coping with an ever-changing set of problems and circumstances. Equally, this approach calls for the use of all available tools and policy instruments, both federal and provincial, in a coordinated way, together with complementary action by carriers, shippers and consumers.
The federal government supports and encourages the creation of appropriate mechanisms designed to deal with the transportation problems of Western Canada in this way.
A strong statement on federal policy such as that cannot have been brought about accidentally, and since it has never been acted upon one can only come to the conclusion which several hon. members on this side have, and that is that the government is not acting in good faith.
I would like to go over a few other local activities which will further indicate that there has been great activity on the local scene in co-operation with the provincial government. It decided that there had been enough debate about rapid transit and that something should be done. The provincial government noted that cities like Edmonton had gone ahead with nuts-and-bolts planning, and it lamented that it might be left behind by other cities if it did not get going. So the New Democratic government decided it would have meetings and get things
Urban Transport
moving. Of course, the NDP did not remain in power long enough to get things completed. However, things are still moving, and the city has sponsored a computer car pool. I do not mean a commuter car pool; I mean a car pool for commuters which is run by a computer.
I note also that Calgary is considering smaller taxis in an effort to encourage faster movement around the city.
Hon. members opposite are always asking what we on this side would do. We have heard much about the promises they made in 1974, and I would like to read a few of the items which were part of the Conservative Party's policy in 1974. Of course they have not been implemented. Here are a few of them:
The federal government must assume a definite leadership role in providing assistance to the provinces and municipalities if viable alternatives are to be encouraged and, in fact, realized.
A Progressive Conservative government will make available experts in the field of rapid transit to,work with provincial and municipal authorities . . .
A Progressive Conservative government will encourage a standardization of rolling stock so that cost savings can be made through volume purchasing . . .
A Progressive Conservative government will initiate a study of existing rail lines with a view to making these lines available . . . improved commuter transit.
... a Progressive Conservative government would immediately initiate meetings between the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities to determine equitable financing methods . . .
A Progressive Conservative government will . .. take a firm position in financing a portion of the rapid transit facilities.
All those items indicate, and this party realized, that there must be a large measure of co-operation and consultation with other governments. I think it is clear that the present government has ignored those responsibilities and acted on its own. It has made what might be termed frivolous campaign promises which were not necessarily wanted in certain cases. In any event, they have been withdrawn.
To contrast the remarks I have made about the policy material of my party in the last election I would like to remind the House that three weeks before the election in 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), standing in the plaza of the Toronto-Dominion Centre in Toronto, announced a new day for urban transit in Canada. He said his government understood the importance of moving people in and around cities by mass transit rather than in energy-hungry cars. He promised to provide massive funds for mass transit to help provinces and municipalities upgrade and add to existing bus, streetcar, and subway networks.


Walter David Baker: And not just in the big
cities, either.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The Prime Minister also promised that Canadian industry would be encouraged and financed to develop experimental equipment. Just last month Vancouver took delivery of its first foreign made articulated streetcar. What is happening is that Ottawa is reworking existing programs without adding any more money, cancelling other programs, and bringing about a combination which is certain to increase the impatience and bitterness of transit officials who in 1974 thought that financial help was on the way.
800 10-2714

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
According ro recommendations which have been made to the cabinet, the new federal policy will be based on two existing programs and one new program to start this year, and not all of them are wanted. The railway grade crossing fund, which is the relocation fund for moving railway tracks out of downtown areas, and a program to aid commuter rail services, were announced in 1975, but now they are designed to start this year.
I support my hon. friend's motion. Nobody is asking the federal government to step in and do these things. We are asking the federal government to consult with the junior governments and help them because the federal government has the advantage of knowing what is going on across this great nation. Urban transit is the next vehicle-no pun intended-to bring the cities to the state where they can be useful to this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the topic this afternoon related to urban planning, transportation, transportation development, and energy conservation.
I must say that I am surprised that the opposition would put forward a motion critical of the government related to energy conservation because as I listened to their various speeches a week or so ago on an opposition day, they did not seem able to outline a very concrete program of energy alternatives to the policy which has been developed by the government during the past year or so, and which is embodied in the "Energy Strategy for Canada" document published last April by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie).
That policy lays out specific objectives for the government for the next ten years. It sets out targets that the government would like to reach related to energy conservation, to exploration in the frontier areas, and to increased resource information being made public by the resource companies. It talks about the need for energy fuel substitution as we gradually use up the oil and gas reserves, how we will move toward the solid fuels of uranium and coal, and the substitution for oil of hydro electric power where that is possible. It talks about the new delivery systems of research, the pipelines which are being developed across the country, and the pipelines which are being contemplated in the Arctic. It talks as well about the emergency preparedness agreement which we have with 18 or 19 other nations around the world which have developed a plan for emergency preparedness.
Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in Washington where one of the emergency preparedness features which has been discussed by our two governments is the development of emergency supply storage system in the Wabana iron mine industry in Newfoundland, and negotiations are continuing between the two countries on the feasibility of that storage system.
The two most important aspects of the energy preparedness feature of the national energy strategy relate to the scheme of sharing, should there be embargos in the future. The other

aspect is co-operation in the field of research, and of course research is an integral part of the national energy strategy, research into the various aspects of energy supply, whether it be in the field of enhanced recovery of oil and gas or in the field of nuclear research. But perhaps the most important aspect is conservation research and research into renewable resources.
I was pleased with the announcement a few weeks ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlining his plans for an increased research and development budget for energy from renewable resources. It has been increased by some $10 million, and the largest portion of this will be spent on renewable resources, such as solar energy, tidal power, wind, biomass and so on.
The second most important aspect is conservation research. I think the government is clearly moving in the right direction on those aspects. The ninth item in the National Energy Strategy is greater Canadian content. Examples of this relate to our uranium policy among others.
I think it is interesting that the Official Opposition would raise the question of energy conservation when they have been seen to have such a vague policy relating to energy matters in general. The basic target for the conservation policy of the government is, during the next nine or ten years, to move our increased use of energy from 5.5 per cent a year, which is the historical average, down to 3.5 per cent, and indeed some estimates go even lower than that. If we look at the historical increase of our population by about 2 per cent, we get down to an annual increase per capita of slightly over 1 per cent.
A year ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference here in Ottawa related to energy conservation in industry. I think that this was one of the very impressive conferences because the office of energy conservation worked with Canadian industry, divided it into sectors, such as the chemical industry, the electrical industry, the heavy equipment industry, and so on, and each one of these sectors has developed a plan for energy conservation. Of course they do this out of good citizenship and, even more important, they do it because it will save them money.
It was interesting that the conference suggested that the chemical industry could save significant amounts of petrochemicals simply by reducing the use of crude oil in their operations by installing new equipment and changing the attitude of their employees toward the use of energy. In fact 1 believe it was stated that around 11 million barrels of crude oil a year could be saved through the adoption of these conservation methods over the target period which, 1 believe, was three or four years. Most sectors of the economy in Canadian heavy industry indicated that they could save from 5 per cent to 15 per cent of their energy use through the adoption of policies which they were developing.
One of the largest users of crude oil and gasoline is the automobile. The energy strategy document sets out guidelines for a reduction in the use of gasoline by automobiles. If cars now have an average mileage of about 17 miles to a gallon of gasoline, during the next five years this could be increased to
March 4, 1977

about 24 miles to the gallon, and in the next ten years, according to the industry strategy document, to 33 miles to the gallon. At the end of a ten year span we would see the Canadian automobile population grow from eight million cars in 1976 to some 11 million, and still with this massive increase in the number, consumption of gasoline would be reduced by about 20 per cent. This represents a very significant saving in energy.
If we look at the plans outlined by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources recently, as they relate to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the insulation of buildings, and conservation of energy in industry, these will be a model for the entire country. If we are to conserve energy in the future we have to adopt a policy similar to the model for Prince Edward Island to meet their very high electrical energy costs, and we must see it carried to the rest of the country.
Some 1 per cent of all energy in Canada is used by the federal government, and the government's policies have resulted in a saving of 10 per cent through programs being carried on in departments by lowering the thermostat settings, and by an investigation into the use of energy in buildings of the Department of Public Works where they have a system of monitoring the use of energy and the ventilation and heating systems. I understand this program will be available to private sources.
Perhaps the Department of National Defence has had the greatest success in saving energy. During this year I believe it has reduced consumption by 10 per cent through limiting the speed of vehicles and various other forms of energy used in the military.
These are some of the active ways in which we are going to save energy in this country, whether it be by an industry, in the community, or in transportation. Surely we should be moving toward a system of more electrified commuter type facilities. We know that in the long haul we will have less and less oil and gas available, and we know that the price will continue to rise.
When the Syncrude project was before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works it was forecast that the price of crude oil would rise ultimately to $35 barrel from the $7 or $8 per barrel it was then. It is now $9.75 per barrel.
The move toward more electrification of our trains and commuter systems is not only desirable but, in the long run, will be a necessity. I feel the government has launched the proper strategy for conservation of energy in the short term by increasing exploration and development of new sources of oil and gas and ultimately moving toward interfield substitution from dependence on oil, particularly imported oil, to coal, and ultimately nuclear and renewable resources. At the same time our expanded program of research and development into renewable resources should be carried out to ensure we meet our long term needs for energy.
Urban Transport
The basic premise on which any solid responsible energy strategy rests must be a good conservation program which sets realistic targets for reduction of consumption, especially of non-renewable resources such as crude oil.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, several features of the motion put down by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), in essence describe the problems that exist within the region of metropolitan Edmonton. If hon. members will permit me to be a little more parochial on this occasion, I should like to take them through the progress, the planning, and implementation of its plans for a modern light rapid transit system that has been in the works and in actual implementation since 1973. It was many years in the planning before that. I can only commend the civic authorities for their foresight in going out and utilizing the facilities that exist, such as the rights of way, and the foresight in planning where the transit system would go, the suburbs it would serve, and the foresight in getting it started when costs were low compared to what they are today.
It may take ten years before it could be called a good nucleus of an urban transit system, and it will cost a pretty penny. But a good portion of it will be at much lower cost so that, if we take the average, Edmonton will be further ahead than other communities.
The government decision which we are discussing during this debate affects the metropolitan Toronto region particularly, and extends into the Niagara peninsula. There is some effect in Vancouver in the lower mainland, to a lesser degree than in Edmonton, but in essence outside of Toronto and Montreal, Edmonton is the only city that has engaged in the construction of a subterranean transit system at least in part.
The promises the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made just three weeks prior to the election in 1974 have not been kept. This is the type of repudiation of a promise that has its roots in "Thou shalt not have wage and price controls." The only distinction between that repudiation and this one is that it took 18 months to come into effect, while this one was some 30 months in gestation. Presumably the Liberal body politic found it too indigestible and has completely regurgitated it. I am going to ask all members from metro Toronto area to stand up and be counted on this particular point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Their election was due to such a promise. It was due as a result of that type of promise. It was due also to the promise not to impose wage and price controls. In metropolitan Toronto that was a great issue. So the whole of the government's election campaign was nothing but deception.
Now let us look at what is proposed in Edmonton. I have in my possession a letter which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) sent me. I have also seen letters he sent to the late William Hawrelak, then mayor of Edmonton. I suppose the

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
mayor was more intimately involved than anyone in the implementation of plans conceived previously. The business was under his direction, and I pay tribute where it is called for. He confronted city council, which was dragging its feet, shook it by the collective scruff of its neck, and got a decision to go ahead. He was instrumental in having some by-laws passed which would give authorization for the borrowing of funds. In other words, he showed good civic corporate leadership, and I do not intend to detract in any way from the leadership shown in planning and execution. That was a good, sound decision.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Made in conjunction with and the assistance of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In Edmonton, in essence, we are using the old main line of the Canadian National Railways. The line runs through the centre of Edmonton. I remember it in the steam days, and remember how the freight trains and passenger trains were made up. We have an old style station with sloping eaves, and all of this sort of thing. There is a terrific amount of land available. The right-of-way runs through the northeast part of the city, to the centre; then it goes in a westerly direction and makes its way out in a northwest and west direction. It uses a great deal of valuable land. Now you see some local shunting operations carried on for downtown warehouses, and possibly three or four passenger trains running each way. All the maintenance facilities having been removed, it is no longer a main line. It merely serves a downtown passenger station, and it is convenient for the exchange of freight cars, the Canadian Pacific Railway coming in from the south.
The Canadian National has a great investment in land in the city of Edmonton. From our standpoint this land must be put to good use. The existing right of way, or part of it, is made to order for a rapid transit system which could serve the main suburbs. Existing facilities somewhere in the outer regions of the system could also be used as garages for cars. The system could funnel people into the city, to facilities underground, say, from where they could disperse to their offices, stores or what have you, in other parts of the centre of the city.
In addition, good planning has led to the placing of the new Colosseum for the Commonwealth Games, a colosseum which will seat 50,000, alongside the rapid transit system. The system would also serve the new hockey colosseum, and there is no better one in the country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It will seat some 17,000 people, and it is right alongside the system.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Perhaps next year they will get a team.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is right next to the right of way of this transit system.
In September, 1974, the mayor of Edmonton wrote to the Minister of Transport reminding him of the Prime Minister's promise in the election campaign to assist municipalities with the construction and expansion of urban transit systems. Well, the euphoria generated by the election was so great that it took that unorganized minister eight months to reply, despite some inquiries as to why no information was forthcoming. Ultimately, in July, 1975, we heard a statement of policy saying that so many millions of dollars were to be dedicated to assist with the purchase of equipment ordered after April 1, 1977.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We were sucked in again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The mayor of Edmonton pointed out in his letter of September that in order to obtain firm prices, firm commitments for the delivery of rolling stock, the orders had to be given by May, 1974. We then got the most extraordinary semantic performance from the Minister of Transport who, in a letter he wrote to me on October 10, 1975, said in part:
Unfortunately, perhaps, programs must have effect from some point in time. The Edmonton rapid transit system was committed before the June 1974 statement on urban transportation . . .
In other words, since the city of Edmonton had said that it was going ahead with the development of its rapid transit system, its decision had predated the election promise. The letter went on to say;
. . . equipment orders were placed before the announcement of the capital assistance program in July 1975. The intent of the program is not merely to provide supplementary funding for decisions that have been reached in the past, but rather to provide selective assistance aimed at solving specific urban problems.
That's poppycock, sheer semantics. What would have been the position of the Minister of Transport if Edmonton had been located in central Canada or in the province of Quebec? [Translation]
... in Quebec there would not have been such selective dates. We had them because it was Edmonton. We chose the dates to remove and set it aside especially for the first stage of the program.

I continue quoting:
The federal government would expect to participate in the examination of such problems and development of solutions.
That is a lot of poppycock, too. I continue:
The Edmonton system, therefore, has reached a stage of maturity which places it in a time frame inconsistent with the objectives of this program.
In October, 1975, they had barely started to turn the earth in the very first phase. There are five or six phases to be considered. This is a mature system. Therefore the minister's words are nothing but semantics.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is playing games.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I continue quoting:
Nevertheless, following my meeting with Mayor Hawrelak on October 1,1 have asked departmental officials to re-evaluate the proposal made by Edmonton.

March 4, 1977

It should be remembered that in July, 1975, the capital assistance program was limited to a commuter system which was in a community. Was it thought that because metropolitan Toronto has within it a number of communities the area would be able to qualify? Are those the kinds of semantics which must be used to determine qualification, or does Edmonton not qualify because, being made up of one large municipality, there is no inter-community communication?
The latest statistic 1 have is an indication as to why the earlier decisions had to be taken. I quote from a letter of May, 1975, from Mayor Hawrelak to the Hon. J. Marchand, then minister of transport:
On May 14, 1975, we came to a critical date. Of those received, our evaluation showed that the bid of Siemens Canada Ltd. in conjunction with the DUWAG firm of Dusseldorf, West Germany, was the most acceptable.
Incidentally, the first car is now on board ship coming to Canada.
The bid included a firm price but was due to expire at midnight Edmonton time on May 14. In addition, our slot in the production schedule-
Of course a production schedule means nothing to government officials. They could not care less.
-would be delayed at least six months thereby severely jeopardizing the full operation of the line in time for the 1978 Commonwealth Games.
The Duwag-Siemens proposal was accepted because it offered a fixed price-
That is something any government should be glad to have.
-(not subject to an escalation clause), a thoroughly proven car and components, and adaptability for future suburban or street-running operations. In addition there is the involvement of Siemens Canada Ltd. regional office in Edmonton, the inclusion of local manufacturing/industrial content and the prospects for future development of this industry in Edmonton appear promising.
At present Siemens Canada Ltd. indicates that 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the electrical content for the cars would be Canadian with probably 80 per cent of this done in Alberta (the "electrical content" is approximately 45 per cent of the whole car). In addition approximately 25 per cent of the body and mechanical work can be done in Edmonton, resulting in a total Canadian content of 25 per cent.
That is something. We have never manufactured this type of car in the past.
I have received from the office of intergovernmental affairs in the city of Edmonton a present rundown on this project. The line is to run from Jasper Avenue in the centre of Edmonton to 129th Avenue in the northeast, with stations equipped with elevators for the handicapped. The estimated cost was S65 million. Recently city council approved an extension to the Clareview area, extending the line approximately one and a half miles at a further cost of $6,760,000, giving a total estimated cost of construction of $71,817,000. The line is scheduled to open in early 1978 in time for the Commonwealth Games.
Here is something the Minister of Transport, who is now in the Chamber, would like to hear. Of this total cost of $71 million, the province is contributing $45 million over a period of six years. The city expects to charge back to the developers
Urban Transport
in the Clareview area $1.6 million of the cost of the extension, leaving the city to float debentures for $25,200,000.
The city was required to pass a debenture borrowing bylaw before it could float the debentures. The bylaw states that the actual amount borrowed will be reduced by the amount of any assistance that may be provided by the federal government. It was also necessary to pass the bylaw before construction could take place.
If the question is that if it has to be urban or inter-commuter, the next phase, which is the northwest phase, can be extended to St. Albert. Only two miles separate the two cities, but it is an inter-urban commuter.
In terminating my remarks I would like to say that the city was led to believe there was still hope as a second part of this plan was coming, but in fact it is left holding the bag for $25 million.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker the opposition today has talked about their desire ,to see very extensive federal government spending. This should really be noted because they have a tendency to criticise the level of government spending. However, constantly, program by program, they ask for more of it.
That inconsistency is never brought home to them because they do not have the sense of responsibility that comes when they have to make decisions on one side or the other, instead of coming down on both sides as they do so happily. I think of how happily they come down on both sides when they have a group which says that the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway must be higher in order to be beneficial to their part of the country. We hear that from the Atlantic Conservatives; but western Conservatives say that the tolls should not be increased at all in order to benefit their part of the country. Unfortunately, both of those Conservatives go back to their part of the country and preach about negativism against democracy, saying the country is being unfair to them for not doing the particular thing they are prescribing even though they are prescribing both things at once.
In this particular issue we again have the Conservatives on both sides. They frequently talk about federal and provincial jurisdictions and the desire and flexibility on their part to see more jurisdiction go to the provinces. That is their most frequently held position, but they come down on both sides as well, depending on what part of the country they are in and their audience. They state that provincial jurisdiction should be theirs to operate. Indeed, they ask for more decentralization.
Here we have an area where there is clear provincial jurisdiction. It is admitted on all sides. It is an obvious responsibility of the municipality and the province to deal with a lot of the traffic inside the province, highway traffic, roads and traffic inside cities. However, the Conservative Party is insisting on additional federal spending in this area.
Why does federal spending occur from time to time in provincial areas? The main reason is because there is a lack of adequate attention, in the view of federal politicians gathered

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
together, in the provinces to a particular priority problem. That was the reason for assistance for medicare, hospitalization and higher education assistance. It is an attempt to make sure that adequate attention is given to a particular problem. That is precisely the reason why the federal government has got into this area in the way of offering some financial assistance.
It was because of the tendency on the part of the provinces over and over again to prefer roads, highways and automobiles as against urban and public transit. It was because of the years of over-attention on the part of provincial governments within their provincial areas of spending, that it seemed right to us to offer some additional financing for public transit. It was not because it was our primary responsibility, but because of this need for additional spending in that area. That additional spending could clearly have been accomplished by the provinces by their own taxation for their own spending purposes, but this was designed to be a particular encouragement of it.
In the 1974 election campaign we did propose we would enter into this field in order to try and right the balance. We have entered it. We have put forward a $100 million program in relation to commuter assistance. We are in the field in other ways which deal with transportation within cities with large sums of money constantly being spent on rail grade separations, studies for rail relocation and ensuing rail relocation. We are in the field in terms of the research which is being done under the auspices of the transportation research agency to ensure the development of better ways of providing urban transportation.
The fundamentals then were that we had here a provincial responsibility, a view on our part that more should be done, and therefore an offer of additional assistance which we have carried out in a concrete way in terms of the commuter program, but which we then re-examined in the light of the need for fiscal restraint. When we announced the commuter program in 1975 we said it was all we thought we could do at that point in time, bearing in mind our financial responsibility. We said we would review the matter further. We have been re-examining it. We have not reached a final decision that this is all we will do, although we will be very conscious of the fiscal restraint program and the prime responsibility of the provinces as we re-examine this question.
We have said to the provinces, as well-and this I would say particularly to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-that we would be quite prepared to try to move toward a more flexible program which takes in a variety of forms of assistance which we give in the public and urban transportation fields, and make it easier for provincial priorities in relation to the spending of that money to be met without highly technical qualifications about where the program applies and where it does not. Indeed, the hon. member for Edmonton West was dealing with some technicalities which will not even exist in the commuter program in connection with whether or not a line runs between municipalities. That is
(Mr. Lang.)
not an essential and necessary part of it. It never was. It was thought by some to be, but it never was part of the program. Nonetheless, that is really not the point.
We do not believe that that kind of technicality is present, but even if that technicality is not present let me assure the hon. member for Edmonton West that if we produce regulations for a $100 million commuter program there will be some highly technical distinctions drawn as to what qualifies and what does not. My aim and purpose really are to try to make that arrangement more flexible so that the assistance is available for priorities within an area, within a province, rather than on the basis of a highly technical definition of terms.
The point is, we have been active. We have made money available, and it is only a question of fiscal restraint that leads us to examine much more carefully what should be done next. Above all, it should be noted clearly that there is a basic provincial responsibility in this field, and when the opposition put down a motion that talks about taking into consideration urban development, taking into consideration energy conservation, and points at wrong decisions in the area of public transportation and transportation by road, by automobile and otherwise, they are pointing their fingers principally, by any book they like, at the provinces and only aiming at the federal government for one reason.
It is in order to try to help the development of the right kind of balance between the automobile and other transportation we have decided we should make some assistance available. Remember, it is the provinces which build the roads to attract more automobiles and which constantly go on subsidizing the automobile thereby encouraging more people to go by car. Many will go by car even at full cost, and that is a choice which I think we will always want to leave to people as long as the costs are fuljy reflected to them. But it is when provincial action and taxation are such that they lead to a benefit in favour of those who go the most energy-consuming way, who choose to go the way which takes out so much more of our agricultural land, that action is needed. I am told that some 40 per cent of the land in many cities in this country is devoted to transportation. There are facts which have been put before the House before. If you go by public transit you are talking about 12 to 20 acres per 100,000 urban passengers compared to 700 acres of land for the same number of travellers by automobile.
This having been said, it is clear there is this marked balance in favour of urban transportation and the removal of some of the bias which has been built into the system. There are enough reasons for which people will choose the automobile without having a significant system of subsidy for them.
Hon. members, particularly in the opposition, should realize that there is a distinction between federal and provincial responsibilities and that these are matters basically within provincial jurisdiction. It was only because of our wish to put right priorities which were going wrong that we offered assistance in 1974. It then became clear, on the basis of the need for fiscal restraint which we faced, and the fact that taxation by us, or deficits by the federal government, have a much more serious impact on inflation than do taxation or deficits at the
March 4, 1977

provincial level, that our program had to be re-examined. As I say, we are re-examining it without having said the final word in the chapter. 1 am not predicting exactly what that word will be.
We made an offer to the provinces and had discussions with them for many months about introducing new flexibility, in other words, the possibility of there being a greater provincial input, recognizing that in any formula we would be talking about a finite sum of money available to the provinces and more choice within the province as to the use of it. At the present time we are asking ourselves how many dollars we can ask from the treasury, to what extent we can impose upon the treasury and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in terms either of an increased deficit or increased taxation, either of which might have serious consequences upon the economy.
It should be clear that our promise in 1974 was evidence of our firm belief that more public transportation, urban transportation, is desirable. It was because of the lack of proper attention to the balance between public and private transportation on the part of the provinces that federal intervention was justified. That is still our opinion. But because of the serious fiscal and financial argument, we have refrained from carrying out what we thought we might be able to do in the course of 1974. We know we shall not be able to spend the amount of money originally contemplated.
Again today we have been hearing an opposition which normally argues against federal spending, urging that there be federal spending. The opposition argues that though this is within provincial jurisdiction, a federal priority should be put in place. Though they oppose federal spending at other times, they urge federal spending in an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that while agreeing with us on the major thrust of the policy of promoting urban transit they are ready to throw away every other ground upon which they stand in order to make a political point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) and others who have taken part in this debate on this extremely important motion. I think the success of this day and the sensitivity of the government is measured by the fact that, at the tail end of the debate, we drew in the big fish, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), to defend the indefensible. Then as soon as his speech is made he walks out of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He came in to speak, then he left.


Mr. Dick:: He fled the Chamber.


Walter David Baker: Yes, he fled the Chamber, either because he cannot stand the heat or because he had to take his jet plane out west to a party function.
Urban Transport
In any event, his intervention in this debate, the look on the face of the parliamentary secretary, the discomfort felt by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), the evident discomfort of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) and of other members who spoke in the debate yesterday, and the discomfiture of the government today-all of this is an indication of how hon. members opposite feel. The position taken by the government is indefensible. Whichever way you put it, Mr. Speaker, in the blush of an election in 1974 they made a promise which, in the light of 1976, they decided not to keep. That is the nub of this debate.
I have always been told, Mr. Speaker, to speak kindly of the dead, so I shall do my best to temper my remarks about this government. But what I have said is the fact and hon. members opposite know it.
Hon. members have told us what this $290 million would mean to Edmonton had it been spent. We have been told what it would have meant to Vancouver, to Winnipeg, and Toronto. Today I spoke to transportation officials of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and the commissioner told me, to use his words, that this breach of faith is an unmitigated disaster for this area. It is a fact that transportation is just as essential now in this urban area, and in some urban areas not as large as the one I have named, as sewers, water, and a whole host of other services essential to the quality of life in our cities.
1 sympathize with the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). Attention should, of course, be paid to rural problems, but this has been denied by the government too. If that had not been the case there would have been some action taken regarding import quotas on beef. We would not have had the nonsense about milk quotas and the difficulties we have had with the dairy farmers in the province of Quebec. We would have had reasonable action taken in regard to cheese imports into Canada.
Urban transportation is not as important to rural areas as the matters upon which there has been no action taken, but the things 1 have mentioned, which have also been neglected by the government, are important to people in rural areas. In fact the hallmark of this government, whether in terms of transportation, the quality of life, agriculture, the working man or the public servant, has been to promise everything and to deliver damn little. That is why the government has lost credibility and it is why it had to bring in the big fish from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Transport, to answer the hon. member for Selkirk.
The transportation commissioner told me something else. He said there is not very much in this program for Ottawa-Carleton but that there was an opportunity to develop new technology; that if the promise made in 1974 was implemented in other cities it held the prospect for development of new technology, technology that these areas could not afford but from which people living in the cities would benefit.
Some people call this misfortune in life. The problems of people living in our cities could have been remedied by this
3698

March 4, 1977
Urban Transport
new technology. Those problems are now condemned to remain unsolved.
The gist of this motion is that the government pledged a solution to our urban transit problems. This promise did not come out of the mouth of a backbencher but out of the mouth of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The cities of Canada relied upon it. The people of Canada relied upon it. Then at the last moment the government pulled the rug out from under the reasonable expectations of these people.
Hon. members opposite can heckle, they can yell, they can blush, they can do what they want. They can try to defend the indefensible. But that, Mr. Speaker, is what has happened. 1 wonder what else is going to happen in terms of the mandate of the government. What about the other promises that were made? Are they as empty as this one? They seem to be. Your Honour will recall that during the last election campaign the government promised to wrestle inflation to the ground. You remember the "crown prince" of the Liberal party, that pretender to the throne, standing up here in his Brooks Brothers suit, glinting his blue eyes, and saying "We are going to wrestle inflation to the ground". Then faced with the problem, what did he do? He left this Chamber, went down to Bay Street, and sniped at his colleagues from the Primrose Club in Toronto. That is loyalty!
We in Canada were promised that we would never have wage and price controls. 1 see I still have one minute, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Walter David Baker: I remember the Prime Minister standing with a Canadian flag in the background and
asking, "Do you want your wages frozen?" The Canadian people said no-and they got their wages frozen. So we have a wasted mandate. To show this is so is the purpose of the motion today.


Mr. Watson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to register a complaint with Your Honour for your consideration. It concerns the choice of speakers from the government side today. 1 represent the largest metropolitan area of Canada. We have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan), who is the chief stumbling block to more funds for urban transit.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Ian Watson: We have heard from two rural Ontario members.


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


Ian Watson: We have not heard from a member from the Montreal region. I happen to support the thrust of the motion that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) has advanced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair recognized the members who rose to seek the floor. 1 do not recall seeing the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) seek the floor during the debate.

It being five o'clock, it is my duty to advise the House that under Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion have ended. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 7, 1977