1980-12-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the benchmark decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission six months ago which ruled that 3,000 federal employees, mostly women cafeteria and laundry workers, were found to be victims of equal pay law violations, in light of the government's stated commitment to justice and opportunity for women in the workplace, and in light of the open defiance of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in his refusal to implement the historic decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the failure of the minister responsible for the status of women to persuade his colleagues to comply, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That this House express its abhorrence at the refusal of the government to implement an cqual-pay-for-work-of-cqual-value settlement with its female cafeteria and laundry workers, and instruct the President of the Treasury Board to comply with the decision of the Human Rights Commission.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of recent reports of the assassination of six members of the opposition democratic revolutionary front in El Salvador, adding to the estimated 8,000 victims of political violence in that country in 1980, and in view of the fact that the United Nations is considering a motion on the
human rights situation in El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House urge the government to approve action at the United Nations condemning recent violations of human rights in El Salvador.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the B.C. Telephone Company has ignored in turn three consecutive reports, those of Justice Henry Hutchins, commerce dean Noel Hall of UBC, and finally the minister's own chief conciliation commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, and since during the months of futile bargaining subscriber service has deteriorated to the point where phone bill strikes are being seriously contemplated in that province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House condemn B.C. Telephone's intransigence in settling with its employees and call upon the Minister of Labour to intervene personally and directly so that a fair and just settlement can be achieved forthwith.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Michel Veillette (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order to move a motion on an important matter.

December 3, 1980
In view of the laudable objectives pursued by the government to strike an equitable balance between all Canadians at the social and economic levels and thereby preserve national unity, 1 find unacceptable the attitude taken by the official opposition, especially its leader, who are encouraging divisiveness by constantly speaking, both inside and outside the House, of "a feeling of alienation", "growing separatism", "western frustration" and God knows what else. Such statements do not foster good will and unity in this country.
Since such conduct by a so-called national party and by its leader is totally opposed to the basic philosophy which we should all share, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant):
That the House demand the immediate resignation of the Leader of the Official Opposition because of this conduct which is unsuitable for a true Canadian.


C ANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that there is a need to improve the quality and quantity of housing on Indian reserves in Canada, that the federal government is the custodian of all reserve lands in Canada, and that direct capital allocation by the federal government for native housing is constantly inadequate, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the federal government provide mortgage guarantees on homes and infrastructure on Indian reserves in order to allow the provincial governments and the private sector to provide the mortgage financing which would enable the private sector to undertake directly the construction of homes under band council direction and supervision, thereby relieving the federal government of the responsibility for some of the capital costs. This type of action by the federal government would support and accelerate the process of self-reliance by the native people of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A press release issued by the
Department of Regional Economic Expansion on the government's new special investment tax credit program for areas of greatest disparity outlines the areas where the incentive will be applicable but does not indicate the data base for the selection of these areas, and this information is not available upon request. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be requested to table forthwith the data base and any other information used to determine the areas where the new special 50 per cent investment tax credit will apply.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Considering the imprisonment to which are subjected members of the opposition and representatives of the independent information media in the Republic of Haiti, and considering the fact that 25,000 Haitian refugees in the Bahamas are threatened with expulsion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
Thai the House request that the government intervene with the Haitian authorities to obtain that the rights of man be respected in Haiti and political prisoners released.


Madam Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMPANY TO DISBURSE FOREIGN AID-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the chairman of Petro-Canada announced in Montreal on Monday that Petro-Canada International was to be set up with an
December 3, 1980

initial allocation provided by Canadian taxpayers of $250 million, with the idea that "it will increase the level of Canada's foreign aid", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
Thai the government cease to use Petro-Canada as a mini-CIDA, and that any tax dollars used for foreign aid be clearly identified as such in the estimates rather than being funnelled, in disguised form, through Petro-Canada or similar agencies.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of fears expressed by the Saddle Lake band that oil and gas production on their reserve will be taxed under the federal budget despite the band's tax-free status, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That a federal policy statement confirming the tax exempt status of oil and gas production from Indian lands be made as soon as possible and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, following his meeting with a delegation from Alberta reserves, use his good offices with his cabinet colleagues to hasten such a statement of policy.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure he will not be surprised to learn that my questions relate to what has been Canada's most prominent and heretofore most successful theatre, Stratford's Shakespearean Festival. 1 refer particularly to the minister's recent decision with regard to an application for a work permit for an artistic director. Nor do I think the minister will be surprised to know that I made a
Oral Questions
commitment some weeks ago to conflicting groups not to raise this, particularly as a partisan issue, because it did not appear to me at that time to be in either the interests of the festival or in the national interest to do so.
Having been released from that commitment 1 now ask the minister of immigration whether he intends to publish definitive guidelines with which internationally renowned artistes, directors, producers and so on will have to comply before coming to Canada. I specifically ask for these guidelines because I say with regret that under the present apparent policy even William Shakespeare himself would not be allowed into this country to produce one of his own plays.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for his assistance in the past. We have had several interesting conversations about the situation at Stratford and I want to express my appreciation for the many helpful words of advice he has provided.
I do want to suggest to him that his question is phrased in the wrong way. It is not a question of which guidelines apply to international directors; the question is which guidelines apply to companies, groups or organizations in Canada in terms of their hiring policy. As the hon. member well knows, the Immigration Act very clearly states that the primary objective is to ensure that Canadians have first opportunity at any positions which are available in this country. There is a responsibility on the part of any employer to ensure that proper and extensive searches are made to make sure that Canadians do have that opportunity of access to those jobs.
My decision was made purely on the ground that the board of directors of the Stratford Festival had not conducted their search in a way which would make that position available to qualified Canadians. I have no interest in keeping out qualified people, but I do have a responsibility under my ministry to ensure that qualified Canadians at least have a chance at those jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, one wonders whether the minister required the same kind of search be conducted for a kooky expert on LSD of Canadian nationality before Timothy Leary was admitted to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, my concern is that immigration policy and decisions are being created in a vacuum without regard to other considerations. Were the Secretary of Slate responsible for cultural affairs in the House, I would have directed the question to him, since he gave a very well-reasoned response some weeks ago with respect to Canada Council's involvement with the Stratford Festival.
In his absence I direct my supplementary question to the minister of immigration, who knows that despite being 98 per cent Canadian the Stratford Festival is not now, if it ever was, simply a regional Ontario theatre but rather one

December 3, ! 980
Oral Questions
of the two or three most renowned theatres in the Englishspeaking world. Because of the cultural impact that is inherent in the implementation of immigration policy taken in a vacuum, I ask the minister whether the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications was in accord with this decision, were his recommendations and those of his officials sought and, if so, what were those recommendations to the Minister of Immigration?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is a certain logic in the hon. member's question with which I am not certain I agree. While I agree with his statement that Stratford is a renowned and internationally famous institution of theatre, 1 disagree with his suggestion that there is no Canadian capable of filling the position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We administered the act according to the sphere in which it was passed by Parliament, namely, to make sure that when a choice is made Canadians are given the opportunity to make application and to have access to that employment. That is the only criterion. I repeat, the board of directors of Stratford did not live up to that criterion, and that is the basis upon which the decision was taken.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, 1 have no quarrel whatsoever with what the minister has just said. My quarrel is that I believe the immigration policy is operated in a vacuum without proper regard to the enormous cultural and economic impacts which were attendant upon the implementation of the immigration policy. That was the point I was trying to make.
Again in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Canadian tourism, I ask my final supplementary of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Lalonde:: The Secretary of State is here.


William Herbert Jarvis: I will stay with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I believe that the minister will be aware that, of the hundreds of millions of tourist dollars generated each year by the Stratford Festival, some 40 per cent of those dollars come from non-Canadian tourists-mostly from the United States, but also from many other countries around the world. Having regard to this enormous economic impact and, in particular, the amount of foreign currency flowing into the country through the festival, would the minister tell the House whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in his capacity as minister responsible for tourism, was consulted and, if so, what were his recommendations; and was he in accord with the minister's decision?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, once again, I suggest to the hon. member that the concern he has expressed is misplaced and misdirected. The decision with regard to the economic impact of the appointment of a director should fall squarely upon the board of directors of that institution. If that
board would take the decision to start a search for available candidates, including Canadians, then there would be no problem in terms of economic impact; they could get on with the appointment of a director and the play could go on.


RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING APPLICATION OF JOHN DEXTER
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Within the context of the John Dexter decision, and as a result of press inquiries, will the minister advise this House whether the recommendation of his officials, after conducting an extensive investigation, was to accept or refuse Mr. Dexter's application and, further, was a cabinet decision taken with respect to this particular decision?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, clearly in this case it is the responsibility of the minister to consult with a wide variety of sources. The decision is solely mine, and 1 will take full responsibility for it.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, for the fourth time in a row the minister has refused to answer a question which has been directed to him. My supplementary is to the same minister. In light of one of the intentions of the Immigration Act, namely, to promote and support the free movement of exceptional international talent, will the minister explain the criteria whereby John Dexter can be denied a work permit and yet Peter Ustinov can be granted such a permit to act in King Lear? Finally, using the rationale explained by the minister, would he please tell the House whether he is prepared to deny work permits to non-Canadian sporting figures in circumstances where they are in competition with Canadian sporting figures? I am thinking in particular of the Jamie Bone situation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, who, 1 gather, is supposed to have the responsibility of providing criticism respecting the Immigration Act, would be well advised to read that act more carefully. What the hon. member is asking amounts to a difference between someone who is coming into the country on a permanent basis and someone who is coming into the country under a visa for a short-term engagement. There is a singular difference there in the kind of application which is submitted. The same thing is also true in relation to athletic performers or those who are in different kinds of competitions. There are agreements, and as the hon. member might know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would like to be able to continue answering the question, Madam Speaker-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Why don't you begin?
December 3, 1980


Lloyd Axworthy: -rather than hearing from the bleachers over on the other side. There are already agreements between different athletic leagues for the exchange of players and athletes in these areas because none of them is taking up permanent residence. If an athlete wants to apply to become a resident of this country, then he must go through the same procedures as anyone else.


IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED COLD LAKE PROJECT-COST TO TAXPAYERS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If he has sufficient energy, he will be back in his seat by the time I ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 am not sure he will be happy when he is back in his seat. My question concerns the statement made by the president of Imperial Oil on two important points, as reported in today's press. First, he says that his company controls the technology necessary for the development of the Cold Lake project. Second, he indicated that the $40 million hand-out already provided by the government and the taxpayers of Canada is not sufficient for Imperial Oil to proceed with this important project.
My question to the minister is this. Considering that he is now in possession of a copy of a letter sent to me recently by our friend "a concerned citizen", who has previously supplied some very accurate information, in which it is stated that the taxpayers of Canada have already provided a minimum of $30 million in one year to Imperial Oil for the Cold Lake project, will the minister tell us exactly how much the Canadian taxpayers have provided to Imperial Oil for the development of this technology? Second, is the company right when it says that we are totally dependent on the company to develop this project?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the technology is concerned-and I stand to be corrected on this-1 believe the technology that has been developed for heavy oil was developed by Exxon and not by Imperial Oil in Canada. 1 believe that is the situation.


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Marc Lalonde: What are you talking about over there? Take it easy; let us get at the facts.


Mr. Nielsen:: We will wait a year for that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: As for the argument that the $40 million advance which has been given to Imperial Oil is inadequate to make the project go, I do not believe anyone in Canada ever thought that $40 million would be enough to proceed with this project, which will cost closer to $10 billion and probably even more. So I am not surprised at that statement. What that advance does is that it ensures the 500 engineers and technicians will be kept working on the project for the next six months while we have discussions with the government of Alberta in an attempt to arrive at an arrangement.
As to the amount of taxes provided by Canadian taxpayers in terms of income tax write-offs, obviously 1 do not have that figure at hand. However, I will be happy to try and get it for the hon. member. If he puts his question on the order paper, we will provide him with a written answer.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister in that rather long answer inadvertently, I am sure, managed to miss answering the relevant question. Did he tell us that Imperial Oil, which did the research in this part of the country for the development of this particular oil product, was indeed a subsidiary of Exxon and, therefore, because of the government's failure to have control over patents, he is now saying that the control really does reside with Exxon? If that is so, then we are in a virtual blackmail position with the Exxon corporation for the development of our own resources and we cannot go ahead on our own unless we pay to Imperial Oil whatever that company demands. Is that what the minister is saying?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, that is not what I am saying. I am sorry if somehow I did not provide the answer the hon. member was looking for. What I believe I said is that the technology has been developed outside of Canada by Exxon. As the hon. member knows, Exxon spends about $450 million a year in research and development. Imperial Oil in Canada spends about $35 million to $40 million. If 1 remember well, I believe that that technology was developed by Exxon outside of Canada and belongs to Exxon. That does not mean it is impossible for Canada to develop heavy oil projects by technology which belongs to companies other than Exxon, or by technology that we develop ourselves over the years.
There is a particular technology at the present time which has been developed by, and belongs to, Exxon, but I suspect there are other ways of achieving it. Obviously, one could even purchase a licence from Exxon, if they were ready to sell us that technology. But 1 repeat, I do not think that technology was developed inside Canada; we have to borrow it from outside.


John Edward Broadbent: I suggest to the minister that he is wrong. I ask him to check with Petro-Canada to confirm that Petro-Canada has in fact developed in Canada research of precisely the kind that is required. Not only does Petro-Canada have that kind of technical capacity, but the research undertaken by the Alberta government's petroleum research centre is of a related kind to that done here in Canada. 1 also say to him

December 3, 1980
Oral Questions
that Imperial Oil did the research which he is talking about in Canada. If it is the case that Petro-Canada has the technical capacity, as well as the Alberta government facility, will the minister make a commitment today that the Government of Canada will use Canadian sources to develop this project and not rely on Imperial Oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I was very cautious in saying I was speaking from memory with regard to the development of technology. It may well be that it was developed by Imperial Oil. I want to check the facts on that. I seem to remember that it had been developed by Exxon, but it may have been developed by Imperial Oil. If that is so, the technology belongs to Imperial Oil, and Imperial Oil belongs to Exxon.


John Edward Broadbent: So do you.


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the New Democratic Party refuses to see the reality. Assuming that this technology has been developed by Imperial Oil, it belongs to Imperial Oil, which belongs to Exxon. That technology is there. 1 have indicated to the hon. member that there are other technologies. He referred to the technology of Petro-Canada. Our intention is to ensure that these projects go ahead. Whether they are developed by a Canadian company owned by Canadians, such as Petro-Canada, or by other companies which have their own technology, what is important is that all those projects proceed in the next few years. That is what we are going to work on.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At the end of last week the Petroleum Monitoring Agency released the long awaited rules on measurement of Canadian ownership of the oil industry in Canada. It appears from these rules that companies like Dome Petroleum, which the Minister of Labour recently described as a good Canadian company, are being put in a position, because of their success which has attracted large amounts of foreign individual shareholders, where they will not be eligible under the new rules for exploration grants under the new energy program.
Will the minister explain why these good Canadian companies which are caught in this situation are now to be in the position of having to hire auditors, accountants and lawyers to dream up the various expensive ways of getting around these rules so that they can become eligible for the exploration grants?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has not read carefully "The National Energy Program". If he will do that, he will realize that all companies are entitled to some incentive grants. Some will get higher grants than others, depending on the amount of Canadian ownership. Dome Petroleum, like any
other company, will be eligible for grants from the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, on the basis of their Canadian ownership. If they succeed in reaching the level of 75 per cent Canadian ownership and control, they will be eligible for grants of 80 per cent of the cost of exploration provided by the Canadian taxpayers. 1 think that is a pretty good deal.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister is very cutely sidestepping the issue. It is quite clear that good Canadian companies like Dome Petroleum are being forced to go through all sorts of legal and accounting machinations to become eligible for the exploration grants for conventional oil exploration in Canada. He has not answered the question why these companies should be put to that extra work and diversion of management activity.
I would appreciate if the minister would answer that question, as well as my supplementary, which is this: During the course of the preparation of the budget, did the minister give thought, with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to developing some incentives for Canadians to purchase the shares of companies like Dome and others, so that there would be an incentive to purchase? The concern I have is that a company like Dome Petroleum may, through no fault of its own, see many of its shares owned by non-residents, and therefore become ineligible for the exploration grants.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that my friend believes that Dome Petroleum cannot afford a lawyer or accountant to prepare the very simple form that will be required to determine Canadian ownership. A company is either Canadian owned or it is not. The formula is very simple. A grade 3 student could fill out the form. They will be eligible for the grants in proportion to their Canadian ownership like any other Canadian company, or any company for that matter operating in Canada.
As far as the incentives given to Canadians are concerned, I remind the hon. member that a Canadian who happens to be in the 60 per cent tax bracket is going to get back 92 cents out of every dollar invested. If he is in the 40 per cent tax bracket, he will get back about 88 cents out of every dollar he is going to invest. 1 challenge him to find anywhere else in the world schemes as generous as those being put forward by the Canadian government.


JUSTIFICATION FOR FORECAST OF INCREASED PRODUCTION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. One of the elements of the new energy policy announced by the Minister of Finance was that there would be a shift of emphasis to the frontier areas and away from the conventional areas of western Canada. On the basis of the assumptions and the supply forecasts the minister has made, such as the September 1978 NEB report and figures put forward by our government, that the bulk of the production would come from western Canada up to the 1990s, surely the
December 3, 1980

minister must be aware of the very substantial shutdown that will take place in exploration activity in Canada next year, between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. How does the minister justify his forecast that there will be increased production in western Canada as the basis of this whole policy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is little doubt that the large increase in production over this decade is going to come from three main sources, the tar sands and heavy oils, the Arctic resources and offshore resources. As a good authority for this, I have a speech made as recently as a few days ago by the senior vice-president of Imperial Oil. He quotes those three areas as being the main sources of future resources. We agree on that estimate. I want to stress to the hon. member that in our own projections we have not included any oil coming from offshore or from the Arctic. Essentially, all resources are based on the developments that are going to take place in the west and out of tar sands and heavy oil. Any additional resources that will be discovered and developed offshore or in the Arctic within the next few years are going to be additional to our forecast and will strengthen the objective of oil independence in this country during this decade.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the fact is, as I have indicated to the minister-and he has not responded to this- that there is clearly an indication of a substantial cutback in exploration in western Canada. The oil sands and heavy oil projects are in serious trouble in this country. Even the aide-de-camp of the minister, the president of Petro-Canada, in a speech over the weekend, indicated that we are going to face shortages and shortfalls of production and supply in this country, that we cannot rely on offshore oil. Who are we to believe, the minister or the president of Petro-Canada, with respect to the shortfall possibilities in this country? 1 want the minister to address himself to the issue and not try to equivocate.


Marc Lalonde: 1 would invite my hon. friend to read the speech by the president of Petro-Canada in Montreal early this week. He will find that he has misrepresented the statement of the president of Petro-Canada. We have indicated we will have a shortfall between domestic production and demand over the next few years. However, we have indicated that this country could reach independence in oil supply during this decade and the president of Petro-Canada is in full agreement with that forecast.
As for the potential reduction in activities in Alberta next year, 1 recognize that this is indeed a possibility. We hope that once the industry has had time to look carefully at the program and budget implications, and once we have reached further agreement with the government of Alberta, which 1 hope will be possible, I believe the problems now raised by my hon. friend will be non-existent.
Oral Questions


EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Affairs. It concerns Canada's complicity with the government of Pakistan in obtaining Canadian knowledge and expertise in Pakistan's and other Islamic countries' goal to develop a nuclear bomb. Can the minister inform this House why no serious charges, other than minor customs violation charges, have been laid against three individuals for attempting to export from Canada to Pakistan certain electronic equipment, similar, 1 might add, in nature to those inverter components banned from export from Britain in 1979? Why is it that these things, which are to be used to develop nuclear potential or a nuclear bomb in Pakistan, have not been exposed and discredited, as explained on the expose on "The Fifth Estate" last evening?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, a police investigation of a shipment of general electrical components was seized by the police and, as a result of that, charges were laid under Group 9 of the Export and Import Permits Act. The police laid what charges seemed appropriate to them after the investigation, and it is not for the government to suggest to the police what charges should be laid. The act provides that equipment originally imported into Canada from the United States cannot be re-exported without a permit, and the charge was laid under that provision.
1 should like to add that we broke off nuclear co-operation with Pakistan in December, 1976, because the Pakistan government was unwilling to give us the non-proliferation guarantees that we sought, and it has not since that time entered into the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Our decision on that is quite firm. We have received assurances from the Pakistan government that nuclear material from the existing Canadian reactor in Pakistan will not be used for any purposes of a warlike nature.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, since the minister has told us that Canada has broken off relationship in this regard with Pakistan since 1976 because Pakistan has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, I wonder if he could explain to the House why Canadian visas were given to atomic energy officials of Pakistan to come to Canada to organize a conspiracy to export these components, to export nuclear technology to Pakistan; and further, why has the Government of Canada not protested in the strongest possible terms this entire matter, which is so dangerous to the peace of the world? Why has there been a cover-up of this whole thing on the part of the Government of Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, this is a matter which is in the courts and it seems to me that we ought to allow it to be decided by the courts. Those Pakistani officials to whom the hon. member refers were not given this permission, as I recall. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigra-

December 3, 1980
Oral Questions
tion, may want to comment on this, but my recollection is that they sought admission to Canada for an entirely different purpose. There certainly was no approval given to them by the Government of Canada to enter for a purpose of the kind suggested by the hon. member. It is the courts which will determine whether the charges which are laid against these people in Montreal will be sustained or not.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, in view of the motion under Standing Order 43 put earlier today by my friend and colleague from New Brunswick, the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he would be prepared to publish the base data used in the establishment of the special 50 per cent investment tax credit program in designated regions. Could he also confirm that the program is being put forward as a pilot endeavour for the next year?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I was absolutely shocked by the statement made by the member and which, of course, reflects upon the integrity of both my department and the Department of Finance. I take full responsibility for the designation. The criteria are public. 1 have sent them to every member. They are based on official statistics furnished by Statistics Canada. Of course, 1 would have never dared make those designations either on gut feeling or arbitrary decision. They are census divisions. I took the 5 per cent of Canadians who are in most need, and in no province could I designate more than 40 per cent. All the statistics have been made public, and I cannot accept such an irresponsible statement.

announced in the budget and in "The National Energy Program".


Mr. Gustafson:: Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, in answer to a question in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the minister informed the Canadian public that there were too many rigs built in Canada, that the industry had over-built. Will the minister apologize to this House and take steps to assure that Canadian rigs will have work in Canada next summer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the information 1 gave to the committee came from the officials of the drilling association themselves, who said that indeed there had been over-building in the industry over the last few years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Totally misrepresented.


PETRO-CANADA PURCHASE OF FOREIGN-MADE DRILLING RIGS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am informed by sources in Edmonton-


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


Mr. Clark:: They laugh at the mention of the region.


Harvie Andre: I am informed by private sources in Edmonton that Petro-Canada has ordered four new drilling rigs, three from United States manufacturers and one from Japan, even though there are several drilling rig manufacturers in Edmonton who are amongst the best in the world and could easily fulfil this contract. 1 wonder if the minister could confirm that information, and could he tell the House just what policy directives he has given to Petro-Canada with respect to purchases such as this?


OIL -STEPS TO ENCOURAGE DRILLING IN CANADA
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the most recent forecast by the Canadian Association of Oil Drillers that 66 rigs will be moving to the United States in the next few months, the fact that 79 rigs have been idle through cancellation of long-term agreements and that 50 additional rigs have been cancelled due to winter cancellations, can the minister inform this House what steps his department is prepared to take to encourage Canadian companies to drill for oil in Canada for the Canadian people?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, such action has already been


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that. Furthermore, the general guidelines given to Petro-Canada are that this corporation must indeed, whenever possible, as far as competition and prices are concerned, encourage Canadian manufacturers. That is the policy which Petro-Canada consistently follows.


Harvie Andre: in Calgary. I wonder if the minister could attach a paragraph or a P.S. to that letter asking Petro-Canada, the national oil company, to see if it cannot find some Canadians with whom to do business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the position of the Tory party on Petro-Canada is well known, and I see that it has not changed. I invite my hon. friend to look at the role played by Petro-Canada since it has been set up.


Harvie Andre: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: The Conservatives are like the old Tories in England in the last century; they learn nothing from history or from election defeat. Petro-Canada has been doing a first-rate job in this country in terms of helping Canadian companies and working with Canadian companies, and it is doing everything in its power to expand its activities with Canadian companies and with the support of Canadian companies.


IMMIGRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration whether his officials recommended allowing John Dexter to enter Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition should know, in making a decision like this we consult a number of sources, including a wide variety of officials. That is advice which I take as being my position and my judgment. As I said earlier to another hon. member, I make the judgment in my ministry, not the officials.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER CONSULTED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to answer the question, although I think we can probably take it from his refusal for the fifth time today to answer a question on this matter that his officials recommended against the action he took.
Let me ask his colleague the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications, presumably the minister responsible for cultural policy in this country, whether he was consulted with regard to the Dexter decision by the Minister of Employment and Immigration prior to that decision having been taken.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I was indeed consulted by my colleague. He and I share the view that the Stratford Festival is indeed a national institution. Both of us are very concerned about the situation which has developed. Both of us
Oral Questions
are very interested in seeing the Stratford company perform again during the course of next summer.
The minister discussed the matter with me. 1 am in full agreement with his position as, as a matter of fact, are Actors Equity, ACTRA and most of the people on the board of the Canadian Conference of the Arts with whom 1 had the opportunity to discuss this matter last week.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question was whether the consultation occurred before the decision.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it relates in particular to the issue of the experimental underground vault for nuclear waste at Lac du Bonnet, which I have mentioned before in this House, and in general to the whole question of AECL's policies with regard to nuclear waste disposal. I have with me a copy of an internal AECL report concerning the nuclear fuel waste management program which advocates changes in the process of obtaining community approval of such undertakings. It states that initiatives are being taken to avoid having local councils express their opinions by way of resolution of these projects.
My question for the minister is whether he approves of this attempt by Atomic Energy of Canada to solve the problem that it has been unable to sell its projects by circumventing the democratic process and the local communities affected by these projects.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the document to which the hon. member refers but, as the hon. member knows, there have been constant consultations with the government of Ontario. The federal government and the government of Ontario are both elected democratically.
As to the procedure which should be followed in this respect, a decision has been taken jointly by the two governments to examine possible sites and to make surveys of possible sites on Crown land, unincorporated land, so as to avoid possible conflicts with local authorities or councils who may not wish to have any such surveys taken inside their areas of jurisdiction. All the democratic processes have been respected and followed, as far as I can assess. No survey will be taken inside municipal territory without consultation and the agreement of local authorities.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, Lac du Bonnet is in Manitoba, and the fact remains that these dump sites are now intended to be put into place over the heads of local communities, which have, through the democratic process, rejected this.

Oral Questions
My supplementary question to the minister has to do with the whole question of nuclear power and the fact that the national energy program indicates a further commitment to nuclear power. Can the minister tell us whether the government has finished its so-called internal review of nuclear power, or can he tell us that there never really was one; and would he confirm to this House and to the Canadian people that we are now committed to going ahead with nuclear power and that the public will never have an opportunity to debate, discuss and publicly present their views on this crucial and, 1 think, unfortunate energy decision by the government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the answer is no.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to revert to the certainty that Pakistan is close to making a hydrogen bomb using the enriched uranium method, partly as the result of past Canadian government policies. Canadians have recently been involved in, and Canada has been a shipping point for, prohibited nuclear and military technology exportation to Pakistan. My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has been involved in ministerial discussions about this very matter.
Is the Government of Canada considering any protest to the Pakistani government or the embassy here in Ottawa about the part played by Pakistani government or embassy officials in this matter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, during my meeting with the Pakistani foreign minister a month or two ago 1 made very strong representations to him on behalf of our government with respect to our feelings as to the development of nuclear explosive devices. I received from him an absolute commitment that Pakistan was not engaged in the development of such nuclear explosive devices and, in addition, that no Canadian nuclear material or technology was being used in this respect.
It seems to me that we have a case before the courts here. It involves materials and components which can be used for a range of purposes, not solely for a purpose connected with nuclear technology, and we should allow this case to be decided by the courts.
December 3, 1980


EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is a devious answer, Madam Speaker, because the minister knows that it is not Canadian technology which is being exported, it is American technology.
My supplementary question is to the Solicitor General who was also involved in these ministerial discussions which have resulted in the watering down or diluting of the charges laid by the RCMP and the security service. My question to the Solicitor General is this. Why were minor charges simply laid under the Customs Act relating to customs offences in this matter rather than the more serious charge of dealing and trafficking in military and nuclear technology to a banned or prohibited country? Why were more serious charges not laid in this matter after the ministers discussed it?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 am not prepared, and neither was the hon. member in the former government, to confirm or deny the particular details of an investigation or case which was being viewed by the security service, and 1 am not prepared to do that in this case.
I repeat the clear policy of the Canadian government, that Canada would not contribute its products, its resources or its technologies to the preparation by any country of nuclear weapons. It is the object of the security service to perform surveillance to counter and to deter any attempt by foreign agents to do so. That is the policy of the security service, and apart from repeating the policy, I do not think it is in the national interest to give details of the operations of the security service in any particular case.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has ordered the East German-Polish border sealed off, and in view of the fact that the Democratic Republic of Germany and the Soviet Union have moved military forces along the Polish border, thus threatening world peace and jeopardizing further East-West detente, would the minister please brief this House on what steps the government plans to take to convince the Soviet Union and the Democratic Republic of Germany to keep their armies out of Poland and to respect the principles of the Helsinki Final Act?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada regards the border situation around Poland with utmost seriousness. As the hon. member himself has mentioned in his question, it
December 3, 1980

would not be compatible with the Helsinki Final Act for any country to use force or even to threaten to use force against another country. It is the opinion of our government that it is extremely important that the Polish question be settled by the Poles themselves and by no one else.
The Government of Canada is taking certain initiatives with respect to this crisis, but I think it would not be in the international interest to reveal those at the present time.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the thirty-third report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning answers given to me on two separate occasions by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and with regard to a statement released by the minister's office last Monday and carried by the Canadian Press wire service. It is my contention that the minister has seriously misled both me and this House, and furthermore that he has challenged my privilege as a member of Parliament by correcting these misleading statements in the press before doing so in the House. With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, 1 should like to recount briefly the history of this matter.
On Friday, November 21,1 first asked the minister whether he would be willing to take action to assist four of my constituents whose land had been summarily expropriated under the antiquated provisions of the Railway Act. At that time the minister assured me that:
As far as we arc concerned, we have succeeded in obtaining a commitment from the builders that they will settle on the basis of the rules put forward in a bill in the Senate by Senator Olson which represented a significant improvement on the old legislation. Unfortunately this bill has not yet been passed by the House, but the applicants are ready to consider themselves bound by it.
I found that answer surprising, Madam Speaker, so I asked the minister to clarify it, and he assured me as follows:
-we have succeeded in reaching a situation whereby the private companies building the pipeline agree to be bound by the particular bill introduced by Senator Olson in the Senate. So in effect, the people concerned can benefit from the provisions of the bill which unfortunately has not yet been passed by the House.
Privilege-Mr. Parker
At the time 1 knew the information was incorrect because 1 had copies of writs issued under the provisions of the Railway Act to four of my constituents. So, knowing it was incorrect, 1 gave the minister yet another opportunity to correct the record. On Wednesday, November 26, I offered him exactly that option. His answer was the following:
I have told the House, however, that Foothills had indicated that, as far as compensation is concerned. Foothills is ready to work out compensation arrangements on the basis of the bill introduced by my colleague, Senator Olson, which has not yet been passed by Parliament. Foothills voluntarily agreed to follow the rules proposed in that particular bill. As far as I can sec. nothing has happened which is contradictory to what I indicated to the House or what Foothills had indicated publicly before.
I could not believe this answer, Madam Speaker, since it was directly contradicting what was taking place with regard to my constituents. So I gave the minister one last chance to correct his statement, and once again he said:
-my information is to the effect that the company has indicated they are ready to pay compensation on the basis of Senator Olson's bill. I fail to see the problem raised by my hon. friend if the company has agreed to pay compensation on the basis of the bill proposed by Senator Olson.
Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, 1 was dumbfounded because I knew the minister was not telling the truth. I had given him four opportunities to correct the record on the floor of this House, and four times he had repeated the same incorrect answer.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Sidney James Parker: As a backbench opposition member 1 had already imposed too heavily on my party's meagre allotment of questions and 1 had failed to get the minister to correct the record. Despite my attempts to raise this obvious bending of the truth with the national media, the minister refused to budge even slightly. Feeling a great deal of displeasure at the way I have been treated by the minister, 1 decided I could not pursue the issue any further. Then, to my absolute horror, I saw the CP wire story on Monday, December 1. 1 should like to quote extensively from this story, Madam Speaker, because I think it says better than 1 ever could how the minister misled this House.
Energy Minister Marc Lalonde forgot to mention a key bit of information about procedures being used to expropriate land in southeastern British Columbia for a pipeline, a spokesman for the minister said Friday. Lalonde assured the Commons earlier this week that Foothills Pipeline (Yukon) Limited, now expropriating land for the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, would use new rules to determine the compensation paid to landowners affected. But the spokesman for the minister said Friday he should have added that the new rules contained in a bill that has never been passed by Parliament won't come into effect until the legislation is approved. That means that expropriation and compensation will continue to be determined by the 1919 Railway Act, the law now in effect.
Lalonde had said that while the Railway Act is the law now and must be used for obtaining court orders. Foothills had agreed to follow the terms of the new act in determining compensation.
But his spokesman said the minister should have added that Foothills has said it would make adjustments that reflect the new approach only after the new act is approved.
It is unbelievable. On four separate occasions the minister stood in the House and told me that this "wonderful" agree-

December 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Parker
merit with Foothills will solve all the problems of my constituents. He even went so far as to practically insult me for making outrageous statements. Then, when all the furore died down, he got some unidentified flack to go to the press and tell them he forgot to mention that all Foothills agreed to do was to follow the law, if and when it is ever changed. By the way, it is really marvellous that Foothills has assured the minister it will abide by the law. I wonder how much he had to give into them in order to get such a strong assurance.
In conclusion, I should like to sum up the reasons 1 feel that 1 have a prima facie case of privilege. First, the minister has seriously misled both myself and the House on four separate occasions. As I have shown, this is not a debatable point. There is no question that what the minister told me on four separate occasions was not correct as it was later determined. Second, and more important was the way in which the minister set the record straight. Since this is where the incorrect statement was made, it seems to me this is where it should have been corrected. Surely the minister owes me, as a member of Parliament, at least that much. Before having some unidentified aide correcting his statements in the press, surely the minister has enough respect for me and for Parliament to rise in his place and correct his statement on the record in my presence.
For these reasons, if Madam Speaker finds that there exists a prima facie case of privilege, 1 am prepared to move that this entire matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 have listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member. I appreciate the fact that we had an opportunity to speak about it last night. 1 want to assure him that if he has been misled in any way, certainly it was not intentional and I would have no problem apologizing for it whatever.
But I should like to put the record straight. First of all, I did not ask any unidentified aide to make any particular statement. Some member of the press probably asked for further information, and it was provided when requested. If the hon. member knew that the answer was incorrect on November 21 and on November 24, I am surprised he did nothing about it until today. But, leaving that aside, I want to say there is nothing in my answer which I believe misled the House.
I indicated that Foothills was willing to pay compensation on the basis of a new bill which had not yet passed the House. In answer to a question by the hon. member on November 26, as reported at page 5089 of Hansard, I said:
I certainly have no power or authority to instruct any of my colleagues, but I will be very happy to raise the problem which my hon. Iriend has pointed out with Senator Olson.
Also I indicated that there was no way 1 could force that particular company to do anything other than act under the existing legislation, that is, the Railway Act. But the fact is that the company gave a commitment to pay compensation on
the basis of the new legislation. It is true that it will only be able to do this once the bill is passed, but it is ready to do it not only with all the people whose property has been expropriated, but with the people with whom it made deals in the past. This is the information I have. So, there is an opportunity for all people who will make settlements with Foothills to come back at a later stage once the bill introduced by Senator Olson in the other place is passed. Senator Olson and I have indicated our support for this type of legislation. We appreciate the fact that Foothills has agreed to be bound by that legislation once it is passed.


Mr. Deans:: They have no choice.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend from Hamilton is always going through the roof without listening to the facts. The company will not be bound by that rule unless it is made retroactive, but it appears that it agrees to be bound retroactively with the piece of legislation.


Ian Deans: That is not what was said the other day.


Marc Lalonde: I think my friend should keep his cool and realize what is the situation, but I will deal with my hon. friend from British Columbia who is much cooler.
As soon as the bill is passed and if it comes into law prior to the completion of the Alaska gas pipeline project, Foothills has indicated that it is prepared to make adjustments which reflect the new approach provided under Bill S-12.
I regret if there has been any misinterpretation, or if my friend feels that he was misled in any way, shape or form. There was nothing in my answers which indicated any such intention to mislead, or any statement which was wrong or false. Also as reported at page 5089 of Hansard, I indicated:
There is no way by which Foothills can act other than under the provisions of a law which is in effect in this country, namely the Railway Act.
1 think I have made the record pretty clear. If there has been some confusion, 1 apologize. I am happy to have had the opportunity today to clarify this matter on the record so that there will be no confusion.


Sidney James Parker: A point of order-


Madam Speaker:: No, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) cannot speak twice on this question of privilege.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to raise a point of order with regard to the minister's answer.


Madam Speaker:: It is the same question. The hon. member cannot transform it into a point of order. Does the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) want to speak on this same question of privilege?


Mr. Waddell:: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat? It is quite obvious to me, having heard the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke, that there is no question of privi-
December 3, 1980

lege in the matter he raised. That is quite clear to me, just having heard him. So, I do not feel 1 can allow any other interventions in a case which is already clear.
The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke said that the minister misled him. If he did, the minister quite clearly apologized for it. I believe we are faced with a different interpretation of facts.
Article 19 of Beauchesne says that a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. The failure of a minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege. Statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the basis of a question of privilege. So, that is quite clear in this particular case. Therefore, for that reason I will not hear any other interventions on this question of privilege.


POINTS OF ORDER
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, just a few moments ago the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) suggested that my motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 today reflected upon the integrity of his department. My motion was not accusatory, nor was it intended to be. Unlike Canada Works and similar programs, the data base for the minister's program to which I referred is not available to me. I do not have it. 1 cannot get it, and I want it. If the minister would simply table it or tell me where 1 can get it, he will meet the thrust of my motion.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I should like to indicate that whatever decision is made, of course it is open to debate. 1 would never say that a decision 1 made is perfect. I already committed myself when I appeared before the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Development that, during the year, I would try to refine the designation to try to correct it as such.
What I would like to emphasize is that those designations were not made on arbitrary, gut feeling criteria. The Department of Finance, jointly with DREE, asked Statistics Canada to designate the different census divisions which met the following three criteria: the highest family unemployment rate in Canada, the lowest per capita income, and an isolation factor. In no province should the regions designated cover more than roughly 40 per cent of the population of the province, otherwise there would be no incentive. I would gladly supply those economic indicators from the different census divisions to the hon. member. Again, I will never pretend that there is no room for improvement. I have already committed myself to see if in the next few months we should not try to
Privilege-Mr. Malone
refine and do it better. I want to assure him there is no arbitrary designation here.


J. Robert Howie: I would like to thank the minister very much for the information he has supplied. I will be making some very constructive suggestions in the days to come.


MR. WADDELL-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. LALONDE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. My point is simply this: in the interests of fairness could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) clarify to this House, and especially to the residents of southeastern British Columbia, just exactly what is his position with respect to the expropriation? He said clearly in the House that company, Foothills, would pay compensation with respect to Senator Olson's bill. He has now said today that the company will pay for compensation for the expropriation with respect to Senator Olson's-


An hon. Member:: Order!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If you will give me a moment 1 will come to the point. It is very important for the residents. They will pay retroactively. I think the minister should inquire of the House, if he is indicating to the House that, in fact, that bill will be brought to the House, as we may never-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 was listening to see what the hon. member had in mind. He can ask for a clarification but he cannot refer at all to the ruling I have just made. I understand that he wants to ask for a clarification but he has transformed it into a question, which seems to me is prolonging the question period.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order. Madam Speaker, this is a crucial question for our people in southeastern British Columbia. 1 ask the minister to clarify that point, which is whether he is bringing in legislation to cover what he just said today in the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise today with hesitation, on a question of privilege. I feel there is some purpose in my rising to deal with the behaviour of ministers of the Crown in relation to how they respond as much non-verbally as verbally in this House. I am referring to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde).
Madam Speaker, as we know, with respect to questions of privilege we are talking about the equality of our ability to participate in the House of Commons. That equality must be accorded, no matter where a member comes from in the country. In the attitude of the minister of energy I detect a

December 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Malone
reflection downwards on those people who come from the province of Alberta. 1 refer to an instance earlier this week when a member posed a question beginning "In quoting from a Calgary newspaper . . and there was a loud guffaw from the minister of energy. Today the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) raised a question in which his very first words were, "In quoting from an Edmonton source..." and the minister of energy again burst into laughter. Surely we must ask why a minister of the Crown who associates with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who says he speaks for all of Canada, degrades some part of this region.
I rise on what 1 know, and what you will soon find out, is not a question of privilege. I rise simply to raise this grievance. I am in agreement with you, Madam Speaker, that a point of order can only deal with the procedures of the day, and a question of privilege can deal only with that which allows reflection upon how one participates in the House. There is a hiatus created, and this House should find a method by which these grievances can be dealt with, because they offend me deeply as a member of Parliament. I resent the behaviour of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he degrades a region in an attempt to make political gain elsewhere in the country.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not want to waste the time of the House on this issue which the hon. member has raised. My only comment to him is that he is obviously sick and he needs some rest.


Mr. Beatty:: That is irresponsible.


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member was in the House at the time, he must have seen there was general good humour and laughter all around the hon. member, on the Tory side. 1 saw many members from Alberta laughing as well. The laughter had nothing to do with the subject matter under discussion, but it was the way in which the hon. member prefaced his question which exposed him to laughter from his own colleagues. So I suggest that the hon. member should go home and rest for a few weeks before coming back feeling a little better.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I hope the minister of energy will reflect upon the quality of the response he has just made with respect to this matter. It is not conducive to what we are trying to achieve in the House of Commons. This House is supposedly representative of a place of understanding where members from all parts of Canada can represent Canadians, in both languages, and where there are no differences in so far as regions are concerned. That is the essence of Canada. If I may say so, with great respect, the minister ought to apologize to the hon. member.


Marc Lalonde: He should be the one to apologize.


Madam Speaker:: 1 cannot hear the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) twice on the question of privilege.


Arnold John Malone: It is a new question.


Madam Speaker:: As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Crowfoot has assisted me in the ruling I am about to make. He has already told me that he did not think he had a question of privilege. I agree with him and I thank him for assisting the Chair in determining whether or not it was a question of privilege. At last here is a member who is addressing himself to that very specific and important point. That is something hon. members do not always do. The hon. member has touched on those reasons himself. Some hon. members feel there are not sufficient occasions to air grievances in this House. The Standing Orders do provide for times when hon. members may air grievances, and I need not mention those to the hon. member. 1 am sure he is as familiar with them as I am.
1 must tell him that facial expressions are not dealt with in the Standing Orders. I am at a loss to rule on a facial expression which might have been made by any hon. member. The hiatus to which the hon. member referred could be dealt with in the Standing Orders if all hon. members agree. This would enable hon. members to air grievances rather than raise questions of privilege.


MR. MALONE-NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RAISE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a new point, and to say that I want to reserve my right-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member would help me if he made it clear whether he is rising on a point of order or whether he wants to speak again on the question of privilege. Would he make it clear?


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it is not a point of order and it is not in reference to my previous question of privilege. It is a new question of privilege and it arises from the very derogatory remarks, which reflect on me as a member of this House, made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when he made the comment that he thinks that I am sick. At this time I merely want to reserve my right to raise that question the next time the two of us are in the House together.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Roy.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 3, 1980

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,503, 1,532, 1,534, 1,538, 1,618 and 1,659.


Mr. Huntington: For the total amount 1961 to 1979, as described in table 1 of the 1979 annual report of the Small Businesses Loans Act, what were the claims paid under the act, not recovered by (a) lending institutions (b) the province?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a)	Claims paid under the act between 1961 and 1979 amounted to $5,841,561. This figure, as allowed for in the act, includes legal cost, administration expenses, and accrued interest as well as principal owing. Figures of amounts recovered by lending institutions prior to a claim being submitted for payment are not available.
(b)	Provinces do not recover loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the Minister of Transport's position with respect to regional air carrier policy?
2.	What is his position on allowing regional carriers limited access to transportation centres, such as Toronto or Montreal, outside their designated area of operation?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The minister intends to seek cabinet approval to release for public comment a proposed new domestic air carrier policy, which will concern, in part, the role of the regional air carriers.
2. The proposed new domestic air carrier policy will address the question of regional air carrier access to centres outside their designated area of operation.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Docs the Minister of Transport intend to create a Seaway Advisory Board to enable industry, labour and communities affected by the seaway to have a say in its operations?
2.	Is the government planning a further increase in tolls on the Welland Canal and/or the seaway and, if so, what level of toll increases is planned and over what period of time?
3.	Will the minister guarantee that full consultations will be held with all interested groups before any commitments are made with respect to toll increases?
Order Paper Questions


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. For the present the minister has endorsed a more informal consultative mechanism than the advisory board concept. Two "Information Sessions" have been held attended by the administrator of the Canadian Marine Transportation Administration, seaway officials and representatives of the users of the seaway. This approach was well received and may prove more productive than a formal structure. The concept of a board of directors or an advisory board is, therefore, being deferred for the time being.
2.	According to an exchange of notes on March 20, 1978, between Canada and the United States there is to be a mandatory review of the seaway tariff of tolls every four years, beginning in 1981, for "the purpose of achieving, through the tariff of tolls and revenue sharing arrangements, economic viability for each section of the seaway based upon recovery of annual operating costs and equitable return for depreciation and capital investments, having regard to the need to encourage the optimum utilization of the existing seaway facilities". Decisions on the future toll levels on the seaway will be made in the context of this mandatory review.
3.	The minister will ensure that consultations are held with major seaway interest groups during the course of the 1981 review of the tariff of tolls, and prior to any commitments being made with respect to toll increases.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	In each of the past ten years, what were the level of grain exports sent to the U.S.S.R.?
2.	For the same years, what was the average annual export of grain to the U.S.S.R?
3.	What level of exports to the U.S.S.R. is considered "normal" by the government in reference to the statement made by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to his decision to end Canada's participation in the grain embargo?
4.	What is the minister's reasoning behind his definition of "normal" if it exceeds the yearly average?
5.	Does the minister feel that more than the embargo limit of 3.8 million tonnes of grain could have been sold and delivered to the U.S.S.R. in the last crop year and, if so, on what docs he base his assumption?
6.	Docs the government intend to compensate farmers for losses incurred due to the embargo and, if so, when will this be paid and in what manner?
7.	Does the minister agree with the steps taken in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and does he support the United States in its efforts to ensure that such communist aggression is not ignored?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: In so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned:
1970/71	328,964 tonnes	1975/76	4,662,598 tonnes1971/72	3,460,256 "	1976/77	1,164,671 "1972/73	5,017,046 "	1977/78	2,398,995 "1973/74	1,125,985 "	1978/79	1,554,657 "1974/75	351,532 "	1979/80	3,795,600 "
December 3, 1980
Order Paper Questions
2. 2,386,030 tonnes.
3 and 4. It has been normal for Canada, as the only country which has exported grain to the U.S.S.R. every year since 1963, to sell at levels in relation to Canadian supplies, transportation capability, and world and U.S.S.R. demand.
5.	No.
6.	Yes. An interdepartmental committee is currently preparing a report for cabinet on the extent of losses suffered by Canadian farmers. A decision covering timing and manner of payment will be made following consideration of this report by ministers.
7.	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 1,205 which stated in part, that the government purchased a Yamaha grand piano for the residence of Admiral Falls in Brussels at a cost of $4,057, in what country was the piano made?
2.	Is the government aware that the Heintzman Piano Company in Canada is closing down due to the lack of business and, if so. for what reason was the piano not purchased from the company in order to assist in Canadian jobs?
3.	(a) What are all of the reasons that the taxpayers have paid for a piano for Admiral Falls and, specifically, is he personally a pianist (b) what arc the names of all persons making use of the piano?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the piano provided Admiral Falls' official residence in Brussels was purchased from Yamaha Canada Music Ltd. of Scarborough, Ontario at a cost of $4,057, with a promised delivery of three months. The piano was manufactured in Japan.
2. At the time of purchase the government was not aware that the Heintzman Company was closing down. However, they were asked to submit a quotation on the piano. The Heintzman Company confirmed that the smallest grand piano manufactured by them would cost $7,900 and the delivery would be six to eight months. The decision to purchase the Yamaha piano rather than the Heintzman piano was based on these factors:
(a)	The cost differential of almost 100 per cent;
(b)	The smaller size of the Yamaha piano could be better accommodated in Admiral Falls' house;
(c)	The earlier delivery promise of Yamaha permitted us to consolidate its shipment with the other Canadian manufactured furniture, thus resulting in a significant saving in its shipping cost.
3. (a) and (b) Admiral Falls does play the piano; however, the provision of the piano was based on representational requirements not the personal factors. Representational functions at which the piano is to be used include recitals of visiting Canadian artists and social functions.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of Transport authorize the printing of a brochure entitled The Canadian Air Transportation Administration and, if so (a) on what date was it printed (b) how many copies were printed and at what cost (c) to whom was it distributed (d) for what purpose?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Yes.
(a)	On or about November 22, 1978;
(b)	258,525 copies, $65,029 (including $6,750 federal sales tax);
(c)	The brochure was distributed to Transport Canada headquarters and to the six regional offices of Transport Canada (Air) to be used in a potential market of approximately 250,000 persons, both internal and external to Transport Canada. The market was seen to be the general public, specifically the air passengers; the aviation industry; the 650 (approx.) licensed air carriers in Canada; pilots and air crew; aviation associations; suppliers; provincial aviation councils and their support employees;
(d)	To describe the role of the Canadian Air Transportation administration.
[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 24 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Shall notice of motion for the production of papers No. 24 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Beatty:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the contract entered into between the government and the Canadian Media Corporation to perform its duties as Agency of Record for the government.
Motion agreed to.
December 3, 1980
David Michael Collenette: I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 54, I now leave the chair so that the House may go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard-Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Under the provisions of the order passed on Tuesday, April 29, 1980, the Committee of the Whole will proceed today with consideration of the estimates under the item transport of the schedule to Bill C-47, an act for granting to her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981.
DEPARTMENT Ol TRANSPORT:
Vole No. I


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Chairman, I thought that 1 could use the opportunity given to me, that is, the consideration of my departmental expenditures to mention some progress made in the transport area, more especially some achievements in which I have been involved since my appointment to Transport Canada in March last. My speech will be deliberately and openly optimistic because I feel that once in a while one should point out what is going well especially in a country like ours where we tend, too easily perhaps, to be pessimistic. Besides, one can be optimistic without being complacent, smug and self-satisfied. I shall have to recognize, in the next two days, that many things still have to be done, which we will do. The beauty of Canada is that most of its problems can be solved, or at least I think they can.
Mr. Chairman, I hesitated before deciding whether I would present my few observations by mode of transport, that is, air, sea, or land, or else, by area, that is the west, the east and the centre. I opted for the latter, but I shall often have to switch from one to the other. I trust I shall be forgiven for doing so.
Supply

Let us look first at what is happening in western Canada. Economic growth in that region has been greater than in the rest of the country as a whole since 1971. This trend is expected to continue throughout the 1980s. Of course, it will have major implications on the transportation system. The federal government is resolved that the transportation capacity in western Canada will be equal to increasing traffic demands.
Let me give some illustrations of that determination. I would like to recognize once and for all the work which has been done by my predecessors and by other members of this House. It is sometimes advantageous to be at the end of a story, rather than at the beginning, which will be the case in some of the instances I will mention. I say that so that 1 will not have to repeat it too often as I go along.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You're trying to get us off our guard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am trying to butter you up. The first subject is ports on the west coast. Last summer three major issues were resolved. Hon. members will remember that the Roberts Bank port development had been held up because of a federal-provincial dispute over ownership of the bed of Georgia Strait. The agreement was signed in August by the Hon. Don Phillips, representing the government of British Columbia, and myself on behalf of the federal government. Under this agreement the province provides for the transfer of land and water lots to the National Harbours Board without prejudice to the final resolution of legal ownership. This allows the National Harbours Board to proceed with the development of three additional terminal facilities. An amount of $47 million has been allocated to the project by the port of Vancouver, of which Roberts Bank is an integral part. By 1985, an estimated 25 million tons of coal will be shipped from Roberts Bank annually, compared to the present shipments of I I million odd tons.
The second accomplishment which I would like to underline is the project taking place at Ridley Island at Prince Rupert. On the grain side, in line with the memorandum of understanding signed by my predecessor in July, 1979, agreement was reached with the grain consortium last September. Three or four contracts for ground preparations have already been allocated and work has begun. The federal contribution to this part will be approximately $22 million. As everybody knows, a grain elevator worth about $200 million and a dock worth $12 million to $14 million will be constructed by the consortium of grain pools and grain companies.
On the coal side, negotiations are now in their final stages with the Japanese. Perhaps I should not say that, because negotiations such as these can have temporary interruptions. I understand that things may not be concluded. At any rate, the federal government has committed itself to $3 per ton rate at the port which, as far as one can determine at this time, would be equivalent to a grant of some $ 15 million to $20 million.
The third piece of good news is in relation to Duke Point at Nanaimo. Last August 1 had the pleasure of signing another agreement with the B.C. government and the Nanaimo Harbour Board, committing $6 million to this $21 million project

December 3, 1980
Supply
which will make Duke Point the major lumber port on the west coast.
I must mention in all this good news, another agreement, which has not received too much attention in the press and which I signed, also in August, with the hon. Mr. Fraser for the government of British Columbia, dealing with a joint marine terminal study to determine what facilities will be needed on the west coast to the year 2000. This agreement should be an important instrument in policy formulation in the coming years.
The major remaining port problem on the west coast has to do with the status of the port of Vancouver. For a number of years now the Vancouver port community has requested more autonomy in the management of its business. During the last election, the Prime Minister made a positive commitment to that effect. The subject is also of interest to many other ports, if not all of them, under the authority of the National Harbours Board.
As my hon. friends know, this subject of port management has been the object of three bills in the last five years. The debate has been going on for a decade. Bill C-50, which was the last incarnation of that debate in the House of Commons, was not generally supported.
1 have had many meetings throughout the summer with members of the Vancouver Port Authority and other port authorities. Together with my distinguished marine administrator, we looked at the whole issue. As a result of these meetings, the marine administrator has now prepared a position paper in consultation with port authorities. This paper is almost ready for presentation to the cabinet committee. I can indicate the general lines of that position paper. They are very practical ones. We recognize the different categories of ports, although most of the attention goes to the National Harbours Board Act. The idea will be to develop two types of ports and to establish a relationship between the two. In the internal jargon, we call them "mini" and "maxi" corporations. The Harbour Commissions Act of 1964 would not be changed in any substantial fashion.
The legislation will be practical. As 1 understand it, this is in keeping with what interested parties involved in port administration want, as well as the people of Canada.
With respect to grain handling and transportation in western Canada, 1 have made a couple of speeches recently on that subject.
The Canadian Wheat Board says that annual grain exports could grow by 50 per cent by 1985, and farmers have accepted this challenge. The Canadian government has accepted the challenge of providing the best transportation facilities. As everyone knows, the government record is pretty good if one considers that in the last decade it has invested a sum of about $1.3 billion in improving the western rail transportation system, although 1 might add that the hon. member for Medicine Hat, others and myself, say that it is still not good enough yet.


Mr. Hargrave:: Amen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is still a lot to be done even when one admits that quite a lot has been accomplished in the last decade.
To correct this situation, that is, make the system as good as it should and could be, most people agree that there are two major areas to tackle. One is the upgrading of the railway facilities. The other is the modernization of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. It is possible that my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Boniface, will want to say more about that. However, I will be in a position, I hope, in the upcoming discussion to answer most of the questions as to what is taking place now by way of branch line rehabilitation, boxcar rehabilitation, branch line subsidies, the grain transportation co-ordinator, and so on.
During the summer I had the good fortune to see CN and CP equipment in the mountain region. At the time federal and provincial ministers saw new signalling equipment, new tracks being laid by extremely modern means, hot box detectors linked with electronic equipment. It was very impressive. I think CN and CP are now quite proud to show the progress which has been made.
1 will not repeat speeches I have made about the Crowsnest. I will just say that more and more people agree that some change must take place. On November 15, 1979, my predecessor, the hon. member for Vegreville said the following as reported in Hansard at page 1359:
Not everyone agrees with the solutions and not everyone agrees with the diagnosis of the problems that are before us.
He went on to say:
there are different views as to how we might best turn the system around.
Partly through his efforts, and partly through the efforts of the previous minister of transport, and also through the efforts of a number of leaders in that industry in western Canada, I think one can say that the consensus on the need to modernize has grown substantially in the last year. On December 1, 1980, the hon. member for Medicine Hat was saying just about the same thing. As reported in Hansard at page 5219, he said:
There are many farmers in western Canada who do not completely understand what is behind the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and what it does-
And I want to emphasize the words "and what it does". The hon. member went on to say:
to the total agricultural economy and the total Canadian economy.
Many other people and 1 have been saying that, and 1 just want to associate a westerner with an easterner in saying those things, to strengthen my credibility on the matter.
In any event, I spent a lot of time, not as much as I would have liked to last week in Calgary and the week before in Regina, discussing those matters with leaders in the industry and farmers. I have been trying to express my great desire about contributing to the modernization of the western grain handling and transportation system.
There is a passage in the budget speech concerning the Western Development Fund which attracted the attention of a
December 3, 1980

lot of members when it was read by the Minister of Finance. Like everyone else, 1 hope this fund can be helpful in solving or improving upon the Crowsnest situation at this time.
Both inside the department and outside we have worked hard on this subject. We have produced a position paper which is in the decison-making pipeline. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat has promised his support in advance, in due course I will be looking for the support of all members on all sides of the House on the initiatives which will be taken.
I would like to mention something else concerning western Canada. It has to do with the bilateral air agreement with the United Kingdom, signed in September last. A number of people wrote telling me how important this bilateral agreement was to western Canada in its air relationship with Europe, in particular, and also in its air relationship with the Far East, by way of Vancouver and Hong Kong. When this agreement was signed, unfortunately not too many people wrote to say they were pleased. However, I guess that is the story of our lives. It is good news to me, and I hope that my western friends share in that sentiment.
There is also the search and rescue program which is of interest to western Canada. The opposition increased the budget last year when they were in government. We have gone further this year for next year. The coast guard base was opened during the summer and four new ships have been assigned to the west coast.
I would have liked to have talked about the CN rail relocation in Regina and the multimodal station. I presume my friends will raise some of these subjects.
With respect to central Canada, I am very much aware of the preoccupation of some members regarding the lack of visible progress on a number of very ticklish issues. 1 refer to the sale of Nordair to the private sector, the transfer of air routes from Dorval to Mirabel, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal STOL project. All of these are very difficult problems. In my view progress is being made, particularly in the last mentioned one. I hope to be in Toronto in the coming days to meet with all interested parties, and that further progress will be accomplished.
I have more good news. The seaway made a profit for the first time. The port of Thunder Bay is thriving. The port of Montreal is doing very well. A decision on a third terminal at Malton will be made soon. The first steps have been taken on the expansion of the Hamilton airport, etc., etc., etc., as the Minister of Agriculture would say.
I would like to single out two progress areas, one being VIA Rail and the other the coming agreement with Quebec on Montreal urban transit.
VIA is a great challenge. There is no doubt about that. As my note says, it is nothing less than a reversal of historic trends of declining clientele, of increasing operating deficits, of deteriorating facilities and equipment. It is a great challenge, but again progress is being made. It is not at the speed at
Supply
which the hon. member for Regina West would like, but nevertheless it is progress.
Mr. Roberts, the president of VIA, said that the number of passengers was up by 41 per cent since 1976. The load factor this year to date has been 50 per cent compared to 35 per cent when passenger transportation was handled by the railway companies. One way of looking at the progress of VIA is that they are not losing as much money as the railways say they would have lost had they continued to operate the passenger service.
A number of new initiatives are currently being undertaken.
I can only tick off what they are: first, a major capital investment program to refurbish old equipment and replace it, as necessary, with new equipment. Hon. members know about the purchase of S90 million worth of Light, Rapid and Comfortable equipment. There is the computerized reservation system, Reservia, introduced in April, 1980. This has been an improvement. In its first days I received a tremendous amount of mail, as 1 am sure other members did. The fact that 1 no longer get any is a clear indication of an improvement. It is better than a Gallup poll.


Denis Éthier: Order. 1 am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired. However, he could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Denis Éthier: I heard some noes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sure the minister will have ample time to conclude his remarks throughout the course of today and tomorrow. 1 thank him for his summary. I note his degree of optimism in his review of progress that has been made. I suppose I could make the comment that in his review he merely recapped a number of the initiatives that had been started. What has transpired over the last nine months is essentially a recycling of a number of programs, perhaps dressed up in Liberal wrapping and Liberal press releases, especially when he suggests that Prince Rupert and Roberts Bank are great achievements. I am sure everyone knows those projects were well under way to being concluded at the time the minister took over this office.
The minister talked about the desire and the necessity of increasing transportation capacity in western Canada. I thought he would seize upon that opportunity to outline some new initiatives on how that would be achieved. He merely mentioned it in passing, and went back to reviewing some of the projects that have been before us for some time. I am rather disappointed that the minister did not come forward today and announce some new initiatives which we would welcome. Perhaps, if they were substantive, we might even conclude this debate earlier than originally anticipated.

December 3, 1980
Supply
The minister talked about grain, and here again he reviewed the past. He did not announce anything for the future in terms of what may be done with respect to the port of Churchill. I sense that that port is no longer a priority. As a matter of fact, we were told that the MV Arctic was going to return to Churchill some time in the month of November.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has. That is public knowledge.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure whether it is going to come in January, or later on in December. I hope that Churchill is still a very important component in the movement of grain for export.
Reference was also made to the fact that a paper has been prepared on the statutory freight rate. Naturally, we will await that with interest. It will no doubt be the subject of some very interesting debate. I hope that members of Parliament, and hopefully the committee, will have an opportunity to examine in detail some of the options and the direction in which he intends to move.
Our party chose the subject of transportation for the express purpose of reviewing progress or lack of progress in a number of areas. It is a very important element in this country. We sense that because of the government's preoccupation with constitutional and energy matters, some of the very basic bread and butter issues related to transportation have been relegated to the back burner. The government has now been in office for some nine months. I think I am fair in saying we regret very much the lack of progress and of any new initiatives being undertaken by this administration and this minister.
I am going to raise a couple of points. Hopefully the minister can respond. My colleagues will be opening up a number of other areas. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East will be dealing primarily with marine issues, an area in which he has long held a very attentive interest that has contributed very much to the development of policy in this country.
I want to deal first with rail passenger policy. 1 am pleased that the minister included VIA Rail in his remarks. We had the good fortune of having Mr. Roberts, the president of VIA Rail, before our committee in the past week or so. 1 think all members of the committee were pleased with his enthusiasm, notwithstanding the very difficult job and the challenges which he faces. However, there are some areas which require government attention and some improvement.
The president of VIA Rail, Mr. Roberts, pointed out the difficulty that VIA Rail is having with respect to the open-endedness of the contracts that have been signed with the two respective railroads and the fact that there was an additional $30 million supplementary estimate which now increases the subsidy toward rail passenger service to the amount of some $455 million. He indicated it was because of additional charges that were levied by the railways, notwithstanding the fact that a contract had been entered into.
The contract that is in existence is open-ended so that the railways can come back a year or so later and bill VIA for additional charges. That makes it very difficult in terms of planning and in terms of route structure and cash flow. Naturally, VIA Rail has filed a dispute with the CTC. Because of the lack of disclosure of cost information data they must rely upon others, so the matter has been referred to the CTC. If we look at past history, it will not be dealt with for perhaps two or three years. That makes it very difficult in terms of their being able to plan ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister will agree with me there has to be some move towards a fixed price contract for at least a 12-month period. That has to be put in place. While the minister may not be directly involved, I would hope that he would provide the necessary moral support to VIA Rail in order that that might be achieved.
Notwithstanding the fact that this element does create difficulty in long-term planning, we asked the president of VIA Rail to provide the committee with a five-year plan and submit it to the committee so that we could look at it, analyse it, and ask some questions on it. In doing this it would give us some indication of where VIA Rail intends to move over the next five-year period. The president indicated he was unable to provide a five-year detailed plan. He said:
There is a cabinet document that has been put together by Transport Canada that will be going to cabinet in the near future, and that will show what is contained in our five-year plan, and when that is approved then we will have we want to make sure that five-year becomes a public document so everybody knows exactly where we are going.
The fact of the matter is, according to Mr. Roberts, that Via Rail is unable to provide the minister and indeed the committee with a five-year plan because there is no long-term policy developed. I know from past experience that much has been done in terms of developing a long-term rail passenger policy. There has been a tremendous amount of detailed and background work done by Transport Canada officials. Unless there have been some dramatic shifts, or unless there is a dramatic alteration in government policy, it would seem to me that it would be only sensible that this discussion paper and formulation of a cabinet document which was put in place during the time of our administration in December, 1979, should be moved forward. Perhaps there are some details that should be changed. I find it very disturbing that this has been neglected and not proceeded with.
I should like to ask the minister, given the fact that he has had access to the discussion papers, the background information, and the very comprehensive analysis provided by his officials, why the delay? Why the foot-dragging? Why do we not have a comprehensive rail passenger policy so that VIA can conform to that policy and we can have some long-term planning?
It seems to me that it is the only sensible way to go and thereby eliminate some of the ad hocery that takes place. Can the minister answer that question and, at the same time, give some indication to us of what his initial reaction is to the recent study that has been provided for Transport Canada by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, Queen's
December 3, 1980

University? It seems to me this is a forward-looking document which may very well provide the impetus for some revolutionary changes in terms of our transportation industry, and particularly with respect to rail passenger service in terms of rationalizing all modes of transportation. I hope that the minister might answer those two or three questions without utilizing the balance of my 20 minutes so that I may get on to a couple of other subjects.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On Churchill my hon. friend would love to know,
I am sure, that the MV Arctic has been there last month to pick up 25,000 tons of wheat for Italy. I tried to provoke a question in the House at the time but 1 could not get anybody to ask it. It is good news, and the opposition is not normally as interested in that as in the bad news.
On the subject of the Crow modernization, I recognize that 1 talked mostly about the paper now in front of cabinet committee. In my recent speeches in the west I went further than that and did say a number of things about the spirit of the exercise we had been conducting during the summer and about the procedure that will be followed. I happen to believe that a negotiating commission would be helpful. There is common ground between the western agricultural conference and the commodity coalition-a number of common elements-but my view is that it would be very useful if this, as I said in Regina, were "massaged" further and carried as far as possible. Then the government would state its position on the modernization of the Crow. I can see very well that the transportation committee will want to give the bill, when it comes, a lot of attention.
As far as the railway-VIA pricing agreements are concerned, indeed one cannot be too satisfied with the system that exists now. I have referred to it as the Japanese thirteenth month, that is, the possibility of adding to the 12 payments. VIA is charged by CN and CP on the basis of the famous costing order R6313. As my hon. friend said, it is slightly open-ended. The current contract between CP, CN and VIA is in the process of being renegotiated. VIA hopes very much to improve the situation when a new agreement takes place next April, and my department and myself will certainly support the interest of VIA in this matter.
The five-year plan was prepared by VIA in the framework of its capital budget. The five-year plan is being reviewed now. It has been reviewed by the department, of course, and will be reviewed by cabinet in January as part of the long-term options on VIA. 1 hope to share with hon. members that review once the cabinet has expressed its own beliefs on the matter. In considering all this, my hon. friend, others and I should be conscious of the fact that VIA has really been moving for only two years, so we are still at the origin of this transformation, and consequently I do not feel uneasy about not having talked in clearcut terms about the VIA experience and about where VIA will be going from now on. In other words, the phenomenon is still quite new.
Supply
On the subject of the institute study I am sorry to say that I have not read it. Consequently an expression of views on the subject would be a straight transfer of the views of my officials, and I do not think hon. members are interested in that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, given the urgency of developing new public forms of transportation, particularly in the rail passenger sector, as a result of the energy crisis and a number of other influences which have come about since the adoption of VIA, 1 wonder if the minister would not consider it of paramount importance that a long-term strategy be developed and clearcut government policy be developed.
I know from experience that a lot of work has gone into that, and 1 think it would really benefit this House and Canadians at large to hear a clearcut statement of government policy with respect to the future of rail passenger service, the rationalization, what particular area it will be deemed to serve the best, and where we might be able to rationalize and develop a truly integrated intermodal system in this country because, in my view, that happens to be the best way to approach this whole subject. I urge that the minister indeed reconsider the importance of the adoption of a long-term policy so that we can have it and judge the performance of the minister and of the government commensurate with that staled policy.
1 hope the minister will also respond with respect to urban transportation policy. Here again we have an absence of a comprehensive and clearcut urban transportation policy, which is something which has been lacking for many years. The whole approach to urban transportation seems to be based on ad hoc decisions rather than on any global approach.
I know that there has been a very comprehensive document prepared by the minister's officials which clearly sets the stage for the evolution or development of a comprehensive urban transportation policy. The document sets out the current setting, provides alternatives, discusses those alternatives, and sets out the various implications and the effects they might have. I would like to ask the minister whether this work has been ignored. Is it being utilized? Has it been scrapped? Is it being upgraded? In short, what is happening?
When we look at the budget and the energy policy, we really do not see any clear indication from the government with respect to providing any funding for the encouragement of new forms of public transportation, particularly surface public transportation both in urban centres and intercity. I wonder why there has not been any advancement in that area as well. I know there have been negotiations over the years with the province of Ontario, the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec in relation to some rather comprehensive schemes for urban transportation.
It seems to me that the time has come for us to deal with this in terms of establishing an over-ail urban transportation framework. We recognized this when we were in office and attempted to work toward not only the establishment of a comprehensive policy, but also within the framework of that

December 3, 1980
Supply
anticipated policy, meeting some of the ongoing needs of the respective cities. For example, the city of Hamilton-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, 1 am sorry that the limit of 20 minutes places some severe strictures upon the minister, the hon. member for Vegreville, myself, and all the rest of us in this kind of debate. However, hopefully over the next 12 hours on this particular department many members will have an opportunity to question the minister, the minister will respond, and perhaps some of us will even get a chance to rise a second or third time. 1 hope government members will raise the questions they want to raise where they might have the best chance of success. I wish them well in their own caucus and in a few other places, but we do not have access to the minister in those places.


David Michael Collenette: We are all equal, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 want to raise a matter which I am sure will generate some sympathy and agreement from the minister and from the hon. member for Vegreville, who was the previous minister. Besides the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance should really also be sitting here. Whether I or anyone else agrees with the programs, commitments and policies of the present minister, his predecessor and the one before, is not the point; they are repeatedly turned down by the cabinet or the Treasury Board on the ground of what I still call the mindless Proposition 13 syndrome about too much government, cutting back and reducing expenditures. The programs which are still waiting to be implemented would not be expenditures. They would be investments, and the return on those investments to the Canadian economy and to provincial, municipal and federal governments would more than recover the costs.
I have listened to this minister and four of his predecessors since 1 came here, and 1 must say that I give this minister first place for announcing the things he will look into and is still looking into. Questions are asked by me and by other members, including some on the minister's own side of the House. He is going to look into a number of things, including the Crow rate. He is still doing that. There never has been any argument that a change in the system has to be made. The argument is only about how the change should be made, not that a change should be made. That is agreed to by everyone in the country.
The minister and his two predecessors refused to listen to a commission appointed by his government several years ago. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall made a definitive analysis, the best ever done before or since. If the minister would just implement Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations there would be no fight left out in western Canada regarding the Crow rate. However, the minister is still looking into it.
The minister is the greatest looking-into minister I have ever known. He is going to look into the airport issues in Toronto. They are still being looked into, yea, these many years. He will
look into the number of safety inspectors. That is still being looked into. He will look into the question of asbestos tailings being used in ballast on railway lines. That is still being looked into. He will look into short takeoff and landing. That is still being looked into. It has been looked into for 11 years. He will look into rail line relocation, airport terminals, multimodal transportation centres. These have been looked into until hell won't have it.
The minister and his predecessors say they agree that they want to do a certain thing, they make announcements and commitments and come to agreements with provincial governments and municipalities, but when it comes to getting the money put on the barrelhead for federal participation, the provincial governments and municipalities are turned down. Then they come back to the House of Commons or they go out to the people with whom they made agreements, or to whom they made commitments, and say, "Well, the Treasury Board has turned us down," as though they were helpless.
I want to suggest to the Minister of Transport that in view of the number of things he wants to do, with some of which 1 and other hon. members agree, it is about time he went to the Treasury Board and said, "Look, this is our government's policy. This is the commitment we made, these are the agreements we signed. You will either put up the money or I quit." It is about time that he had some guts in dealing with the people in his own outfit. This does not just apply to this minister; it applies to several others. We have had four successive announcements and press conferences in Regina, from three ministers of transport, about rail line relocation and commitments and agreements on cost-sharing.
I should like the minister to make note of one question which I shall put to him, and I hope I will leave him some time to answer it. If not, I will send him a letter. Is it true that Saskatchewan has agreed to use $3 million of the funds allocated to that province under UTAP, which is really supposed to be for grade separations, and the whole $9 million is supposed to be spread around the whole province? Is it true that Saskatchewan has agreed to use $3 million of the $9 million for phase I of the Regina rail line relocation? If it is true, then when the hell will he get the other $40 million out of Treasury Board? We must get started on it. We have been waiting four years and a host of other things have been held up. It is a commitment and a promise of government policy. When in God's name will he do it?
The minister mentioned that he would deal with issues on a regional basis. Since I only have a few minutes left and my colleagues will be raising numerous items in this discussion, I should like to raise a couple of other matters. The minister spoke about the sale of Nordair. Let me remind the minister that Air Canada had no choice. In fact they were given two choices: it was either compulsory or they had to do it. When PWA and Transair were provided with prairie routes into Winnipeg and in the prairies. Air Canada had to give up $12
December 3, 1980

million worth of passenger revenue and two flights a day in and out of Regina and Saskatoon, and Edmonton-Calgary.
Air Canada was replaced by Pacific Western and, according to the agreement, in exchange the $12 million would be picked up by Nordair flights between Winnipeg and Toronto. If the minister approves the sale of Nordair, the whole $12 million of lost revenue given up by Air Canada will go down the drain. This is damn strange when it comes to developing a regional air policy under the so-called private enterprise competition theory. After Air Canada has built up its routes with the taxpayers' money, as soon as it starts making money, here come the free enterprisers. Where the hell were they when we needed them? The money-paying routes are taken away from Air Canada, which prevents it from providing reasonable service to people in isolated parts of Canada where they lose money. As a result there is a reduction of services in small and medium-sized cities and in the isolated parts of Canada. Surely that requires a fundamental change in the air policy of this country, and I hope the minister will comment on that.
The minister has mentioned VIA Rail. It did not have a good beginning with all the handicaps which plagued it at the start. It was started in exactly the same way as Canadian National was in 1923. It has a debt load which it will not live long enough to pay off unless a subsequent Parliament, years from now, writes it off or transfers it into shares. VIA Rail was stuck for $70 million in equipment from CN and CP which it should have had for $1 a car. Both CN and CP received great benefits in tax write-offs and depreciation. For that equipment they did not deserve more than $1 a car. That is the kind of thing with which VIA Rail started off. It will be held up as a terrible example of a rail passenger service which does not work, or of a corporation that is no good. If you started off in that kind of situation, what the devil can you expect? I am amazed at the good job they are doing, given the circumstances and the framework under which they have to work.
The operating agreement between VIA Rail and CN-CP is one in which the minister and the Canadian Transport Commission have to intervene. They must make available to VIA Rail the unit cost which CN and CP use. VIA Rail does not have a clue as to what the devil it is paying for. It does not know how much it is being charged for the use of a railway station, hot water, steam, or whatever. All this information is kept confidential by the railroads. It was turned over to the Canadian Transport Commission and to the minister, but they will not turn it over to VIA Rail, and VIA Rail has to negotiate an operating agreement blind. Surely that must stop.
When it comes to operating trains in Canada, the kind of operating priority that CN and CP can give to a unit coal train, unit grain train or any kind of unit freight train, is amazing. The minister and the CTC have to require both CN and CP to give the same kind of priority to a unit passenger train. We should be able to move people in this country as fast as we can move pigs.
On the matter of STOL, Mr. Chairman, this is an elitist, bourgeois operation for deputy ministers, business executives,
Supply
and members of Parliament to fly between Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. That is not what we need from short takeoff and landing aircraft. We need them on our east and west coasts, we need them in the north in the territories, and we need them in the northern parts of our provinces where it is not necessary to build big airports and where all the little isolated communities can be provided with a decent service. You can land and take off on a gravel strip or a beach, if you have to. That is where you put STOL aircraft. We can say to the workers and to the manufacturer, "We will need more of STOL aircraft for that purpose than we would for some elitist service out of Toronto Island." It is a total waste and total duplication.
Perhaps the minister would care to read the study which he commissioned from the Canadian Institute of Ground Transportation. We need a fundamental change in policy. We need people in the Department of Transport who do not have propellers or jet engines for brains. We can move people from Toronto to Ottawa and to Montreal in that triangle, let alone to Quebec and Windsor, at speeds of up to 160 miles an hour and at a cost recovery price of $22 a person, versus $55 cost recovery per passenger, on average of conventional air travel and STOL. That $55 cost per passenger does not include airport costs; those are still handled by the taxpayers.
This nation must develop something that all of Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have done, that is, the electrification of the urban transit system and railway lines. The Soviet Union has electrified 100,000 kilometres of railway track in the last 25 years. If you were to electrify 10,000 miles of lines in Canada, that is just 20 per cent of our trackage, to handle 75 per cent of our freight and passenger traffic-1 wish the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources were here-the amount of diesel fuel saved in one year wouid be enough to seed and harvest many crops in the three prairie provinces. We are up to here in electricity and we will have a surplus of it. We will start exporting even more electricity to the United States. It is not a case of just the production of energy; it is making better use of our energy resources. We can be electrifying urban transit systems.
As I say, we can electrify 20 per cent of our main rail lines, and if they transfer just 20 per cent of the increasing volume of traffic from air and road to electrified rail, the amount of diesel fuel saved would be enough to seed and harvest 12 prairie crops in one year; it would be enough to run all interprovincial buses in Canada for 25 years; it would be enough to heat hundreds of thousands of Canadian homes, the ones stuck with heating oil because natural gas was unavailable to them. Surely this is a sensible and rational way in which to reorganize the transportation system. It requires a fundamental change in present and past government policy.
I will sit down in a minute and let the minister reply in whatever time 1 have left, but I want to assure him that if 1 and my colleagues have another chance to raise this matter and other items today and tomorrow, we will do so. We will
5304

December 3, 1980
Supply
continue to do so on every other available occasion until there is some new direction and new national purpose, because one of the best contributing factors to national unity is transportation. All we have to do is read what Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to say.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Regina West is well known for his dedication to railway transportation. He is not alone. No doubt there is a future for railway transportation. What I have said about the progress of VIA is in line with his conviction, but occasionally I think he goes too far. The other day in committee he more or less invited me to stop all contribution to any other mode of transportation, and to concentrate all the money which could be found in the Department of Transport on railway transportation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I did not say that. I said that you should be a little more even-handed about it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The idea of coming out after the government review of the VIA plan with some paper, be it white, green, yellow or whatever, submitting it to the Standing Committee on Transport and hearing witnesses, is quite attractive to me. I concede that the members of that committee are somewhat frustrated and might occasionally prefer to spend their precious time thinking in wider terms than questioning me only on relatively small matters. I share that conviction, and I believe the hon. member has known me for a long time. I go along with the suggestions of the two previous speakers, but first I should like to talk about air transportation.
The hon. member expressed his disgust for the STOL concept; that is a matter of taste.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Only in Toronto.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It seems to me there might be a place for STOL in the particular context in which it is being studied now- Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa-and in other situations as well. Just throwing it out the window and calling it elitist is not a great contribution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is wasteful.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I remember travelling from Ottawa to Montreal when I worked in the private sector. For a long time I used that mode of transit and found it extremely useful and moneysaving. Consequently, this is the approach I took to it. If the proper financing facilities can be found, in conjunction with Ontario metropolitan cities, certainly I will have a more positive look at it than my hon. friend.
The member referred to the transfer of Air Canada routes to PWA. If I may say so, it is part of the division of routes in Canada to accommodate national, regional and local travel. If one goes back to the origin of air travel in Canada, Air Canada had everything. Hypothetically Air Canada could be the single airline. A number of people believe that regional and local airlines could do a better job than Air Canada. So, there is a balancing act at three levels, and even at the top level, and
there is a distribution of responsibilities and benefits between Air Canada and CP Air.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have worse service now with two airlines than we had with one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: it does not shock me that there is a movement of routes between airlines in the manner described. As a matter of fact, this is somewhat the name of the game.
On the subject of a regional air policy, I am sorry the hon. member said that 1 too often announce studies and decisions to come. Well, I will be there to see the decision; it takes time to get these things through. We have produced a revised regional air policy which will go to cabinet very soon. There is only-


Denis Éthier: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Give him another minute.


Denis Éthier: I should like to take a moment to advise hon. members that I think the best procedure is if I am rigid on the matter of the 20 minutes, so that the procedure will be equally fair to each and every member, i regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I will treat all hon. members equally.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deniger:: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be able to speak after people as knowledgeable in the area of transport as the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Regina West. I particularly appreciated the comments of the minister because he gaves us a list of all that is going on in the Department of Transport. Unfortunately, he was not allowed to complete his remarks.
However, I agree with the hon. member for Vegreville that, in the nine months we have been in power, the Department of Transport has not had such a high profile as it should have had and as the hon. member and myself might have wished. This is because our government has dealt mostly with the constitutional and energy policies. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Transport, under the able leadership of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), has been one of our most active committees and has heard a great many witnesses. Because of this, all members of the House have been able to participate and to understand fully the decisions that the government must now make in Canada.
During the 20 minutes allotted to me this afternoon, I would like to concentrate strictly on air transport, and especially on two aspects of this means of transport: First the absence of policy concerning regional carriers, and second, the Nordair file. The minister said that he had nearly completed or was about to present to the cabinet a policy paper on second level carriers, and I am happy about this because the present situation in Canada is quite impossible.
December 3, 1980

The most recent policy concerning second level carriers goes back more than ten years. This was when Don Jamieson was transport minister and at the time he had divided Canada in five regions. Since then, the Canadian Transport Commission has had to make several rulings on this policy, and because this is provided in the legislation, several of these judgments had been appealed to cabinet. In fact, Mr. Chairman, cabinet recently reversed the ruling of the Canadian Transport Commission concerning an application and a decision of the commission involving CP Air and Eastern Provincial Airways. CP Air had applied for permission to go as far as Elalifax and Eastern Provincial Airways for permission to go to Toronto.
Without passing judgment on whether or not the decision of the cabinet or the Canadian Transport Commission is justified, it is now obvious that any regional carrier application to the CTC for any route whatsoever in Canada is now useless, except to get a decision that will be appealed, because the policy, which in fact no longer exists, unfortunately, is such a mishmash that I wonder sincerely what the commission will do in a few weeks when it studies the application of Quebecair for landing rights in Toronto. If we go back to the policy of Mr. Jamieson, we realize that granting Quebecair access to that area, that is, to Toronto, would be contrary to that policy. And if it is in fact contrary to that policy, then the CTC should say no. So, considering the irregularities or weaknesses in the policy as it now applies, the ruling of the CTC is absolutely useless because a final decision will come from cabinet which, once again, on an ad hoc basis will indicate to the Canadian people what its policy is with regard to regional carriers.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see that the minister is about to submit a policy to cabinet because the examples I have just given really prove the dangers of a lack of policy, for which I do not blame him because he inherited it, but still, a lack of policy just the same. I feel it is imperative for the CTC to have, the sooner the better, specific instructions so that all Canadians and all carriers who need permits, who need routes, can go before the commission knowing that it has a policy to apply, and how cabinet will react under normal circumstances.
I should now like to deal with the Nordair file. When one is a member of Parliament the best way to make headlines is to say that the government is trying to put one over the province you represent. The best way to make sure that you will be seen on television in the evening is to attack the government. The best way for the hon. member for Joliette to make the headlines in the evening is to state, in his unique style, that Quebec is being conned. And that is what they say about the Nordair file. Furthermore, 1 would have liked the former transport minister, the hon. member for Vegreville, in the few minutes he had, to tell hon. members of the Elouse what was the solution he put forward in the Nordair file because, as we know, he was about to submit such a solution to cabinet, and according to what I heard in the department, I tend to believe, Mr. Chair-
Supply
man, that the hon. member for Joliette perhaps would not have been pleased with the decision of the hon. member for Vegreville when he was minister of transport.
I would have liked him to tell us that but, of course, he did not say a word about his policy on Nordair. The hon. member for Joliette has told me that he intends to participate in the debate tomorrow. Therefore, I am looking forward to hearing what he is going to tell us, and 1 also hope that he is going to repeat that at the Progressive Conservative caucus when they meet, because 1 agree with him.
The last thing 1 want to see happening is for Quebec to be gypped and I am convinced that such is not the case but I would not feel so certain if the former government were still in power. Mr. Chairman, let us take a closer look at this file as it is and I do not want to indulge in petty partisanship in this respect. 1 do not want to say that because Nordair is actually located in Montreal all interests in this company should be held by Quebeckers. Perish the thought, Mr. Chairman. However, 1 do say that the minister has been presented with two serious applications, one from the Lizotte group and the other from the Desjardins group. The expertise of these two groups in aeronautics is outstanding; it is a well-acknowledged fact. Both have current expertise in aviation. Therefore one can say that they are both equally qualified. Both groups have attracted various investors, co-op style groups or certain other elements that do not necessarily happen to be located in the province of Quebec.
And it was precisely toward a majority share in the Lizotte or Hamel-also called Desjardins-interests that the department's policy seemed to be directed. Even though the matter seemed to be progressing fairly well, there was a certain uncertainty; both parties wanted a quick decision, they wanted the minister to skip a few steps, but 1 think he was wise in waiting because the situation was not ripe. I agreed with the minister's view. But I became concerned when the newspapers reported that the minister wanted a 40-40-20 division, with 40 per cent of the interests in Ontario, 40 per cent in Quebec and 20 per cent to Air Canada.
I would first like to comment on Air Canada's equity. Basically, I see no problem because in any investment scheme Air Canada would bring a certain wisdom, a financing capacity, and an unquestionable expertise. But in a 40-40-20 scheme, effective control goes to Air Canada, in cases of controversy between the two groups, and I am not sure that I would want to give that power to Air Canada, because, as we all recall, the government policy was to save Nordair by asking Air Canada to purchase it and to sell it off afterwards to the private sector, and that policy, as far as I know, remains unchanged. But if Air Canada retains control by having the number of shares necessary to vote in cases of controversy, then 1 see problems. Without being against Air Canada having equity, I want to make sure that the distribution of Nordair shares would not allow Air Canada to exercise such power.

December 3, 1980
Supply
But I see especially serious problems in the 40-40 Quebec-Ontario split because I do not think that, in air transport specifically, decisions should be based on a geographical map, and that is precisely what the minister's advisers are trying to achieve. The worst thing that could happen to Nordair-and 1 do not dare think that it may happen-would be splitting the company into "Air Ontario" and "Air Quebec". I think that would constitute a major step backwards in Canadian air policy. I realize that some ultra-nationalist groups would like you to do so, but they ignore the basic facts of the air industry in Canada and they serve very short-term and nationalist purposes when advocating a policy which would be prejudicial to Canada, Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the best and most basic aspect of any air policy is that no province is involved and that it has no frontier.
So 1 think the minister ought to avoid a 40-40-20 split. 1 consider that such a distribution is senseless. ITowever, as 1 said earlier, it does not mean that I would remove any minority or majority interest of a few provinces or businessmen within those provinces. Far from it. But an arbitrary 40-40-20 split as suggested would give rise to some serious problems. Is Nordair a Quebec or Ontario carrier? Mr. Chairman, 1 refuse to answer such questions because how can we identify a Quebec or an Ontario company when most of its flights are between Montreal and Ottawa, Montreal and Hamilton, Montreal and Pittsburgh and Toronto and Pittsburgh? What happens then? Is it an Ontario, a Quebec or an American company? It is above all a Canadian company and this is the fact that should not be forgotten. Basically, Nordair must remain under Canadian ownership.
There are now suggestions that most of Nordair's business, the major part of their traffic is not in eastern but central Canada. As far as Nordair is concerned, people who analyse the matter-and 1 am sure the hon. member for Vegreville will agree on this-those who look at the routes realize that the $15 million invested by Nordair in those passenger routes have not been recovered yet and that in effect, in terms of return on dollar investments, its passenger traffic is in the red. It must be realized that Nordair's profitable routes are not the passenger ones but the northern routes serving the Dew line, defence bases, the Inuit and the Indians. That is where Nordair is making its money. For that reason I refuse to identify Nordair in a 40-40-20 per cent split. So there are these two groups, the Desjardins group and the Lizotte group. I suggest we should use an approach along the lines of Solomon's judgment. 1 suggest we take the most favourable aspects of both applications.
Unquestionably, the best element on the Lizotte group side is employee participation. This is something that I, as a member of Parliament, would like to see more often in our Canadian corporations. It could go as far as having one or two employee representatives on Nordair's board of directors. Mr. Lizotte himself does not preclude the possibility, were his group's application to be turned down, of joining forces with the Desjardins group, with employee participation. 1 read this in a report by Claude Beauchamp in the Montreal journal Les affaires. Mr. Andre Lizotte said so in so many words. 1 am not making this up. The best aspect of the Lizotte group being employee participation, let us now apply that to the other group, the Desjardins group. We see that the Desjardins group is made up by Alfred Hamel and the Provost family who are without doubt known in Quebec as the leaders in transportation in that province and whose expertise is established in multimodal transport by road or by air, Mr. Chairman.
As we are clearly dealing with strong personalities, with Mr. Lizotte on one side and Mr. Hamel on the other, the solution would then be to regroup all that under an umbrella which could be the Desjardins Investment Company. Again, the reputation of this financial institution is well established, its vitality is well-known and it is led by respectable Quebeckers one of whom we met recently, Mr. Guy Bernier, the president of that company.
I would therefore suggest that the leadership be given to the Desjardins group which could combine the best aspects of the Lizotte group, employee participation, Alfred Hamel and Mr. Provost. We would then have a very dynamic team. But the reason for a decision must be taken into consideration.
When the government took over Nordair, it was fully aware of the economic problems the regional carriers were facing at that time. Therefore, we must clearly remember that any regional policy in Canada must stem from an attempt at rationalization. We must make sure that both companies are healthy and that our goal is not to cause competition between them but to combine their organizations, and I know you will agree with me on what both Quebec and Canada want, regional carriers in good standing.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the minister if he wishes to respond to that eloquent plea, most of which I think we can agree with although I would remind the hon. member that it was the government which caused the problem in the first place. There are many items which will be raised over the course of today and tomorrow while we are on estimates. 1 myself have some 13 points to raise, and I wish that we had twice the length of time that is allotted to deal with the matter. I will touch on my points briefly and then I will narrow in on specific areas with questions to the minister.
I will talk about pending legislation on matters with which we can deal. I would like to discuss the sense of commitment of the minister with respect to the export of our raw resources, specifically, coal on the west coast, and the requirements for imported oil to the west coast. These points will be raised in the context of the commitment which was firmly entered into by the previous government, and by the government prior to that, with respect to the re-establishment of Canada as a cargo shipping or deep-sea shipping nation.
December 3, 1980

In connection with this matter I will deal with the minister's attitude with respect to cargo preference laws, particularly in the bulk trades. I want to know what the minister has done or intends to do about closing the waters north of 60 degrees, including Ungava Bay, Hudson Bay and James Bay. 1 would like to discuss safety at sea and the current emphasis on education. 1 want to discuss the upgrading and expansion of certain of our Canadian coast-guard facilities. I would like to know from the minister the government's direction with respect to our shallow water ice-breaking capabilities, and 1 again want to emphasize my growing concern about unprotected bridge piers in navigable waters in Canada.
1 want to continue the philosophizing which the minister initiated late one afternoon in committee on the propriety of Canadian National investing, through order in council, in Cast Shipping sufficient moneys through the purchase of class A preferred shares to the extent that-1 presume at its will-it can take up the option of full management and control. In that regard 1 will put a specific question to the minister as to whether or not he continues to believe it is proper for Crown corporations such as Canadian National to invest taxpayers' dollars in companies which are essentially foreign owned. For example, Cast Shipping is registered offshore in tax havens. This company does not employ Canadians and, indeed, provides very little residual economic benefit to our country.
Perhaps in another context later on the minister could give some indication as to when the St. Lawrence River will close, and some indication of the anticipated onboard grain storage on the lakes this winter. As I indicated, those are some of the general areas with which I would like to deal.
1 would like to come back to Cast Shipping for a moment. I would like the minister to give the chamber the benefit of his expertise in this area and tell us exactly how much money the government has authorized for investment in that company. Would he tell the House what percentage of the class A preferred shares of that company were purchased by Canadian National? Also, it is my understanding that in some 13 or 14 months Canadian National will have to indicate its intention to the government. I would like to know generally what the minister's attitude is concerning this, specifically, whether or not the government is in agreement.
In today's Globe and Mail we notice that Cast, which is a foreign company, although it is owned by Canadians domiciled in Europe, is moving to acquire the St. Lawrence Stevedoring Co. of Montreal together with major bulk cargo handling facilities at Montreal and Quebec City. Cast uses Canadian tax dollars. Its profits go offshore. Consequently the company is not properly taxed here in Canada. Its ships' crews arc foreign. Therefore, no tax dollars accrue to the Canadian government.
It would seem that Cast, with CN's AAA credit rating is about to run around the country and buy everything up hoping, 1 suppose, to avoid the objections of Canadian National doing this openly and under its own name. By using Cast,
Supply
CN, when it has purchased and taken control of those facilities in its immediate interest, could then exercise its option for class A preferred shares and take over full management and control of that company. As I have said, this is a company whose basic corporate structure lies outside Canada. 1 am somewhat disturbed by it. 1 am a little frustrated that we have not had quite as much openness with respect to this matter as would seem to be appropriate. I would like to know where CN is going and to what degree it intends to use Cast to do things CN otherwise is not prepared to do.
For many years another area of continuing concern to me has been the redevelopment of a Canadian merchant marine. I see distinguished members of the National Harbours Board are with us today. It was not necessarily the age of the Canadian merchant fleet in the late 1940s which caused its demise. It was not necessarily high crew costs. It was not directly "labour" which led to the very drastic reduction in the number of Canadian-owned and registered ships on the oceans of this world. It was not those factors alone. Indeed, the greatest factor was the deliberate decision by government to unload the old Park Steamship Company. With that and the government's deliberate decision-not an accidental one at all-not to lend assistance which would have enabled the private sector to replace that capacity, this contributed, in my opinion, to the loss of Canada's presence on the high seas. At that time Canada's shipping fleet was among the top seven or eight in the world.
Today, while we may have 100 or 120 Canadian-owned ships offshore, they are not registered in Canada. In some cases they carry some Canadian crew but in other cases they carry no Canadian crew. These ships are registered, without exception, in so-called countries of convenience for tax purposes. That has been the situation. Government by its deliberate policy has supported that position, believing that Canada was well served and continued to be well served by foreign shipping.
In the last three or four years, and I am sure the minister is aware of this, the situation has changed. No longer arc the forces of shipping nearly as dependent upon market forces as they are on the forces and influence of government, in other words, political forces. That has changed the scene. From Mr. Howard Darling, we have a caution. We had signals that we should be changing our direction, that we must look at our sovereignty and that we must not act necessarily as other countries do, but we must act in our own best interests if we want to continue to enjoy the assurance of being able to move our goods.
The $3 billion to $4 billion that we now pay to foreign cartels is inexcusable. This situation should be turned around. We have the capacity in Canada. We have the trained seamen. Crew costs arc now no longer a major factor. 1 doubt if 10 per cent separates the highest paid and lowest paid crews of any flag in the western world. The cost of fuel oil has been the great reducing force. It has been the great leveller. All of these things brought together have created an atmosphere in which

December 3, 1980
Supply
countries, such as Canada, should move toward the development of their own fleets.
The former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, went very far in pursuing active conversations with the interested community and with Canadians generally. Had we carried on in government 1 am sure at this point in time we would have had before the Canadian public not only the framework within which to redevelop the Canadian presence on the oceans of the world, but we would have had a fair amount of meat on that framework.
Perhaps the minister could deal with the Cast situation and then give us some idea concerning a Canadian merchant marine. Perhaps he could tell us where these plans start. So that he will not think that I am after him too much and once we have seen on paper what is being proposed with respect to changes in the ports act, if there is nothing hidden in it and it is a straightforward attempt to correct a very serious situation, he will find that over here we are, most of the time, a co-operative and friendly group and we will be prepared to deal with it quite quickly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, there are so many questions, one has a choice. The hon. member for Dartnrouth-Halifax East has mentioned Cast and the deep sea fleet. First, 1 might say with regard to Cast that CN acquired 18 per cent of that company in 1976. In July, CN moved to invest $7 million to maintain that 18 per cent position. Now, with the approval of cabinet, CN has invested $42 million in the project by way of preferred shares. These preferred shares can be converted at a later date-I do not remember the date exactly, but I think it is in 18 months. However, the decision has not been made. In the meantime, CN will have to answer a number of questions and explain to me, as Minister of Transport, and to my colleagues, the desirability of continuing or getting further into this project.
To conclude, the most recent decision does not affect the percentage ownership of CN in Cast. It does not prejudge either on this being or not being a contribution to the development of a deep sea fleet in Canada. In other words, it is a temporary situation. My colleague saw it as a good investment for CN, and I believe it is. The hon. member keeps saying that Cast is foreign owned. My information is that it is a Canadian company.
There is no doubt that the CN investment in Cast raises a number of questions as to CN's role. There are so many things that CN can do it is almost unbelievable. They have done a good number of these, one only being railway development. The company is into a deep sea fleet operation, port operation, ferry operation, and a great many others. Of course, there are some who say they should not go too far. Others, and I am one of them, see CN as being dynamic, aggressive, and forward moving. If there is a role for CN to play in the development of a deep sea fleet, why not? That is my position. As a Crown corporation, CN has a role in the development of government policy and consequently can be used as the avant-garde on a
number of moves. That is the way 1 see it, and I do not apologize for it.
On the subject of a deep sea fleet, 1 am delighted to know that my predecessor had a solution. I will gladly take it from him immediately after the House recesses. Seriously, the hon. member indicated there is a debate in Canada. It is a lively one. The disadvantage or the advantage, depending on where you stand, is that the free system as it now exists, to use a well-known phrase, has served the country well.
Some people see all kinds of dark clouds on the horizon in terms of government intervention, reduction of fleets of convenience in the world, with a cargo reservation between countries on a bilateral basis, the UNCTAD formula and so on. There are others who do not think that way, and they are still in the majority. Therefore, there is no agreement on what is ahead.
1 believe, along with my marine administrator, that we should be careful. We should try to hedge our bets. Consequently, the department and the minister have encouraged shipbuilders, ship owners and shippers to debate that subject extensively, and they are doing that. There have been a number of meetings with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Export Association to that effect. That is a condition sine qua non, as Shakespeare would say: if there is no agreement among the people interested in the subject, how could you impose a policy? Therefore we have encouraged a consensus development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: My friends laugh unnecessarily. This is very serious.
We are also exploring specific possibilities. 1 have very seriously done that along with the Minister of Finance with regard to coal, oil, and wheat. We are looking at the possibility of using tax incentives. The subject is very much alive and I am very interested in moving ahead.


Denis Éthier: I might just explain that the hon. member for Manicouagan has been generous and has offered to cede his place. I would have ordinarily recognized him next, but the hon. member for Lisgar is obliged to leave the House. This will not interfere with the normal ratio of speakers. It is merely two members who will reverse their opportunities to take the floor.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Chairman, I wish publicly to thank the hon. member who so graciously stepped down to allow me to make a few remarks and direct a few questions to the minister. I hope I have not inconvenienced him.
My questions to the minister will have to do with the resolution, hopefully, of one of the most important issues in western Canada, the Crowsnest Pass rate or the statutory grain rate. I hope the minister's reply will be reasonably short so that there will be time to ask a few more questions.
My first question has to do with the whole matter of the statutory grain rate. The minister commented at various farm

December 3, 1980

meetings that he is looking at setting up a task force on this very important question. My questions have to do with the task force and not necessarily the pros and cons of the Crowsnest Pass rates, how the money should be paid or anything else. That is a question that should rightly be left to the interests of western Canada.
Can the minister indicate whether he will be proposing a task force? What will be the size of it? Has the proposal gone to cabinet and, if so, has it received cabinet approval? I presume that if he is proposing it, cabinet has given its approval.
Can the minister also indicate the time frame he is looking at for resolution of the whole question? Some of us feel that a reasonably short time, six to eight months, would be best for this kind of task force. Can he indicate his or the government's thinking on this issue? If everything goes according to plan, when will the task force begin its work?
1 understand there is general agreement that something be done in terms of a resolution of this very important problem on the prairies. I further understand that the organization to take the longest to agree that something should be done is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They have tentatively agreed that some change is needed. The various organizations have different ideas for change. 1 presume this is what the task force will examine. Possibly the minister can reply to that so that the members here and the people of Canada will know his intentions. That would be most helpful.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will answer as briefly as I can. Normally, I would not be giving precise answers to these questions because this is all before the committee. However, so much is already out that I can only confirm some of the news that has come out.
What is before the committee of the cabinet at this time is an approach, not a fully developed plan. This is being debated now in a friendly atmosphere, not in an atmosphere of confrontation as the press has suggested. I do not know where they get their facts. On top of that, they stated that I said it, when 1 said the opposite. In any event, the approach is now developing.
In simple terms, the approach is that the government would state a number of principles or beliefs, a number of things it holds to be true, as the Americans would say. It would then create a task force which would further explore the consensus which has developed in western Canada in recent years, particularly the western agricultural conference and the commodity coalition positions. They have a number of factors in common. We know what they are. There are other areas in which they have differences. The western agricultural conference, referring to the participation of farmers with regard to the freight rate, used the word "negotiate". I understood that to mean a desire to look at different possibilities. That would be the role of the task force. It would be under and would report to the Minister of Transport. On the basis of that report, in the hope that it will further the consensus, the
Supply
government would then announce the policies. The task force will be small in number, possibly three or five members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Put me on it.
[DOT]	(1720)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. If it is essentially a consultative instrument. The difficulty is that some farmers, whose representatives now say that they do not want a royal commission because the discussion on the subject has been exhausted, may very weil come back, if we have it in another committee of the House of Commons at that moment, and say "we want to be heard". That is the difficulty 1 am thinking about. So much for the size of it.
Finally, what is the timetable? Bluntly, one advantage is that the government has the time to do it. Hopefully this government will remain the government for four years. We can take it from there-one year for the benefit of the Crow modernization to become evident to westerners; one year to implement it; one year to legislate it; one year to think about it. So, this is the program. We have been thinking a lot about it. I am delighted some of the members on the other side have expressed their views before me on the subject and there is a fair degree of consanguinity, as we say in French, of communality.


Jack Burnett Murta: I thank the minister for his comments. We have viewed some of the happenings of the last few weeks with a little puzzlement. Given the almost direct opposition to any change by Senator Argue-I know the minister might want to comment on what Senator Argue is thinking; however, I do not know whether anyone else knows what he is thinking in terms of a grain boycott, grain embargo or whatever-nevertheless, there is divisiveness within the Liberal cabinet which is of some concern to people in western Canada.
[DOT]	0730)
There are two other questions I would like to direct to the minister. The first. I suppose, is from a personal point of view, and it has to do with Senator Olson's and also, I understand, Senator Argue's insistence or request for some kind of inquiry into the CPR before we get into the whole question of the statutory grain rate. Since I understand that the proposal came in the first place as a Liberal campaign promise and was put forward in that light, 1 for one-and I am speaking personally-cannot see any point whatsoever in going through this kind of process again. I think it would have a detrimental effect on the present activity among the farm organizations themselves in western Canada in terms of a resolution, one way or the other, of the whole question of the Crowsnest Pass rate. I pass that on and, if the minister wants to comment on it, I would be very happy.
The other question is about branch line rehabilitation. Now that the branch lines are basically in place in western Canada so that the industry, farmers, government officials and others know where we are going, certainly until the year 2000, I would like the minister to comment, if he could, very briefly on

December 3, 1980
Supply
the amounts of money the government has allocated or intends to spend on this very important operation in the next number of years, because obviously without the infrastructure we will not be able to move grain, and it appears now more than ever that agricultural exports, especially grain, will be one of the saving graces in terms of our balance of payments in the years to come.
Would the minister comment in the short period of time he has left?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr, Chairman, 1 will do my best. The hon. member is asking me for some very personal views. He said that he expressed his own views. He has more freedom where he sits now than I have as I sit here. Be that as it may, I think Senator Argue must have found comfort in the recommendation which was made at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool the other day which, generally speaking, espoused the western agricultural conference approach and then, of course, took a fallback position which returned to the Crow. Senator Argue must have found satisfaction in that and, if he did, I will also.
Reference was made to an inquiry with respect to the CPR. Yes, indeed this was a resolution of the Liberal party at its last convention in Winnipeg. My views tend to go along with the views expressed by my hon. friend, that it would be difficult to carry the two enterprises in parallel line. However, it could be done. Some people would welcome that inquiry as having a cleansing effect on the reputation of the railway. I have heard that argument, but I personally hope-and I think this would be the approach-that an inquiry into the behaviour of CP would not influence the orientation or the progress toward Crow modernization.
On branch line rehabilitation, I remember that $240 million has been spent up to now and, as the hon. member knows, the total amount to be spent in the future under the program is $700 million over a period of eight years. That has not changed. A number of people say it might be a good idea to accelerate that program, and some in this regard, as in others, look with covetous eyes to the western development fund.
[ Translation]


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole on the matter of transport, because I think the riding of Manicouagan can be readily identified with transport. In a sense, I am of the same mind as the Minister of Transport in that I do not know where to start, by Baie-Comeau, Blanc-Sablon, Schefferville, Fort-Chimo or Sept-fles, because if one considers the size of that riding, one readily realizes that transportation is not only a local but also a regional priority. It is with some emotion that 1 take part in this debate since a good friend of mine, who happens to be the mayor of Longue Pointe de Mingan and is also a pilot, has been missing for 48 hours. God be with him! But when talking about municipal airports or about means of transport in our country, one must take into account the human dimension of it all on top of the financial or administrative aspects because when it comes
down to it, all this technical equipment is there to help people. One realizes that it is important to have adequate equipment that works all year round when somebody is reported missing, like Mr. Leblanc.
First, 1 want to commend the Department of Transport for upgrading the airport facilities in some parts of my riding. I will deal later with some negative aspects but for now 1 want to underline the great improvements made to the Sept-Iles airport within the last three years. We now have quite a beautiful air terminal at a cost of $9.2 million. The same thing holds true for the equally modern Baie-Comeau airport which will benefit from some $4.5 million investments over the next five years. The same applies to the Natashquan airport which has now a paved runway; this may perhaps seem strange to hon. members, but I will just say that only a few weeks ago in a small community about 60 miles east of Natashquan, planes were landing on a runway lighted by oil lamps. The Natashquan runway is now paved, which is important locally since it allows landings and takeoffs regardless of frost and thaw.
The same holds true for the Gagnon airport where the Department of Transport is going to invest, as it was confirmed to me by the minister's office, over $4 million in the next two years, first of all to build an aircraft parking area because the people of Gagnon now have to walk 300 to 400 feet between the air terminal and the aircraft when often the runway is swept by strong northern winds. Those who have visited the place will find it is no luxury to have the aircraft come quite close to the air terminal. Because, when we board the plane at Gagnon, we really feel like refugees, we have to carry our luggage as best we can, and when we get off the plane, the situation is much the same.
All in all, things seem to be improving in the larger centres of the riding of Manicouagan, but in remote and isolated areas, they certainly are not. In that connection, 1 would not only ask the minister but also the officials who accompany him to listen with all their ears because I often have the feeling that 1 am crying in the wilderness and writing to God knows who, since the replies are often disappointing. I would even go further, Mr. Chairman. At times, I get the feeling that the civil servants are not always our allies, although I must say that we also have friends since we do get elected in our ridings by telling people the facts, whether we sit on one side of the House or the other; we arc still convinced that we know our areas quite well. And that is mainly why people elect us-to represent them.
When we have to consult senior officers from the Department of Transport we feel that we are facing a brick wall and that we are not dealing with people who are prepared to untangle the administrative jungle and plead our case. We feel that they put on the brakes not simply to slow us down but to bring us to a full stop. In that sense, it becomes very frustrating for members who have received a mandate from their
December 3, 1980

voters to find out that instead of working with allies they have to put up with systematic blocking.
And I can assure you that I know what I am talking about when I remember the file on the airport of Havre-Saint-Pierre, a ten-year old file. I do not want to accuse anyone, to put the blame on both sides; 1 do not intend to pass judgment on that but I think 1 spent more energy on that file than on all the other files of the constituency of Manicouagan put together. I had to phone. I figured out that I made 267 calls over a year and a half.
1 did the same thing with various ministers because at that time I had to call Mr. Mazankowski, Mr. Pepin and Mr. Lang and it is very difficult to feel the administrative and the political will. When you live in a remote part of the country, and I refer as well to constituencies such as Tcmiscamingue, Abitibi and Bonaventeure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, you really feel at times that you are alone in those battles. I understand that there is always the financial side, of course, but there is also a matter of priority, and this is where it fails apparently.
The question I will ask, because with 20 minutes one is very limited, is the one about the policy regarding small municipal airports. Some six months ago I requested a meeting with the minister. The minister was very polite and he told me that he had asked his officials to prepare a few scenarios before presenting them to the members who are always quite inquisitive.
The minister asked for a policy statement on municipal airports to be drafted in order for it to be tabled if possible before Christmas. I would like to ask especially of the department officials because they are those who are the closest advisers to the minister, if, at the level of their administration, there exists a distinction between those municipal airports which are, in my opinion, closer to the definition of flying clubs and those which are primarily municipally oriented airports such as Blanc-Sablon, Saint-Augustin, la Romaine, 1'Abitibi, Ungava Bay, James Bay, the Magdalen Islands. Are there truly established distinctions between the two types of airports?
In my area, between Havre-Saint-Pierre and Blanc-Sablon, there is a 400-mile stretch where there is no road. So when I raise the matter of municipal airports, I think in terms of mail, in terms of passenger service, of course, and in terms of transportation of patients and food supplies. So obviously we have no choice. The same thing applies in the case of the Magdalen Islands. There is no road between the islands and the mainland. For about a decade, we have been fighting over the kind of equipment necessary, over the type of aircraft. These days when men go to the moon and when we are contemplating with great emotion the rings of Saturn, I wonder how it can be possible that we should fail to solve such minor problems. I would not want to speak for the people in Sherbrooke or Drummondville, but surely a municipal airport in these areas is less important and deserves lower priority
Supply
than in areas like mine. Here is my question to the minister: what is being done for municipal airports, in terms of policy? I would like the officials to keep in mind that this is a priority for the people of our regions.
There is another important issue in the area of transport. I mean the maritime issue. We had in Baie-Comeau what was a rather special and, in my opinion, extremely simple problem, which was to discover the condition of the wharf before condemning it. DPW waited four months before making its report, after which DOT took some action. In the meantime, the Quebec government decided that repairs would cost $100,000 and they should go ahead as a priority without consulting the federal government. I believe it is about time jurisdictions were defined in such cases, and DOT should be able to make decisions more quickly without always having to wait for other departments. It should at least be able to put pressure on DPW to get it to act quickly. The wharf was condemned on June 6. I myself was in Baie-Comeau on the 7th, the report was ready on November 4, and the report had not been ordered before October. So what happened between June 6 and the early days of October? That is the question I ask and I would like to get an answer.
Another aspect in which I am deeply interested is the air transport rates. I would like to know from the minister whether there are special rate structures, that is, public assisted rates for areas in Canada or in Quebec other than Manicouagan. People living in Schefferville, Sept-Iles, Gagnon and Fairmour.t have no choice concerning transport. As I used to say, they arc living in the Siberia of Quebec or Canada, that is, they are quite isolated and they always have to travel by airplane.
Right now when we consider fuel prices and overhead costs which increase every day, I can understand why airline companies, in this instance Quebecair, have to raise their fares. What I cannot understand is why the department has not provided for a subsidy scheme or a tax credit for those users as they have no choice but to fly. 1 think that some other airline companies which link Newfoundland and the mainland get some public assistance. If a verification is not warranted in this case, what then can be done? I for one would prefer a tax credit formula which would go directly to the people, for if a company receives a direct grant the rates skyrocket after eight months or a year and then it is back to square one.
Therefore I think we should resolutely and officially study such cases and take strong action. And while I have the floor this afternoon I say that I wonder if anything will come out of this to show the strength of my belief, for I am often under the impression that we are talking to a wall when discussing such issues I wish that people listening everywhere in their offices and people who will read Hansard tomorrow would keep my questions in mind and come up with some answers. Nothing is worse than the lack of interest within the public administra-

December 3, 1980
Supply
tion. I often think that it is hon. members' daily lot, and I really wish that the civil servants would be aware of that and that the minister would follow up on this subject and even go beyond. I even wonder if the Department of Transport ought not to be divided in three sections so as to be really able to follow up on all these files. When we are speaking of transport, we are speaking of air, sea and land transport, and it is very hard for one man to be aware of every aspect of the issue. I therefore believe that for effectiveness we should perhaps consider splitting the department and creating several ministries under the direction of a titular minister to be sure that some progress is being made.
I have had the opportunity to travel throughout Canada with the transport committee in the company of my colleague opposite from Regina East and other members, and we saw for ourselves that there are many problems. People often complain, not necessarily about identifying a problem, but about the time it takes after a problem is found to exist and before action is taken or even before an answer is received.
These are facts that we have been able to verify during the first two weeks of September, and everywhere in Canada we realize that the lapse of time between the moment when a problem is identified and the moment when action is taken is such that very often the problem has changed considerably. 1 therefore believe that the minister should perhaps review the operational methods of his department. I am not in any position to tell him what to do in this area, but it is my view that people for whom transportation is a daily experience, and to me in my area it is all in a day's work, those people feel that the department must be reorganized to become more efficient, with a higher degree of delegation to the regional level. 1 for one have to be called almost every day for 15 days at freeze-up time, because in my area aircraft cannot land on the lakes, for lack of ice. The plane does not stop, there are no roads and no water transportation services.
We have the same problem during the spring, there is a three-week thaw period on a 400-mile coastline, with a population of 5,000. Airplanes cannot land because we have no instruments, no equipment. At that time people call us to complain there has been no crossing for three or four days, and sick people have to be moved out. This requires helicopter services, but we are not authorized to order helicopter transportation. These are everyday problems in an area like Mani-couagan. When we write or speak about this, it has a frontier, a folklore flair. Well, to us it is unacceptable. I realize the Manicouagan district may be the most expensive, per capita, to the Department of Transport.
I can understand that but is it a valid reason to leave things as they are? I admit that there has been much progress in the past 20 years, but not enough. And even more, I notice works that are being done in the constituency which are perhaps less necessary, which are even luxurious, but some cuts could be made in some places to give elsewhere. I do not ask for more
funds in the constituency but I ask that the investments be more judicious and I will give you a specific example. A parking lot is now being built in Baie-Comeau at a cost of $350,000 yet not more than 40 cars use it in a week. Is it necessary? I doubt it.
With the kind of equipment installed at Sept-Iles, one has to pay 50 cents to park for a full day when next door it actually costs 75 cents an hour. Imagine! And they advertise that to boot. It costs 50 cents to park a whole day yet the other lot next door charges 75 cents an hour. You see what 1 mean. That is what we get from the Department of Transport. One has to take a ticket. If you are about to board a plane and you do not have 50 cents to put in the slot to get a ticket, you have to go through the airport.
It is forbidden to park in front of it, and you have a bill so you then have to get some change and come back to park with your 50 cents. No one is bright enough to put someone in the little box at the back who could at least make change. It is all those things that make administration absolutely flabbergasting; I wonder why we are not consulted about things like that because 1 claim to know my riding better than some people.
I can understand that things have to be done like that in Montreal or Quebec City where parking has to be better controlled, but in places like back home, those things cost a fortune. It is a matter of deciding what should be uniform in public administration and what special measures can be allowed from time to time. That is what I would like to see the civil servants of the department look into.
Of course, I understand that the minister should be put on the spot because he is not aware of all those problems. The primary function of department officials is to give advice but, good grief, one has to know the place to be able to do so. That is my bone of contention. Frustration becomes so bad that we have it up to here. There comes a time when we are getting really impatient and when we want action. I for one intend to keep after the Department of Transport because it is vitally important to us. Of course, when you go to the doctor's you do not tell him what is right, so what is happening this afternoon is about the same. I point out more often what is wrong, but we should admit that certain things are right. I have to commend the minister and the National Harbours Board for putting $45 million to $50 million in the national harbour of Sept-Iles over the next three years. This is fundamental.
I should also commend the minister for the decision he made at last, after ten years, authorizing the airport of Havre-Saint-Pierre, and I should like to ask him in the same breath whether he intends to confirm the regional vocation of that airport. Recently 1 asked that question in committee. I was told that the situation was being re-examined. Quebecair has applied for landing rights in Havre-Saint-Pierre and the company Fer et Titane which has some facilities in Havre-Saint-Pierre would like to expand there, and I think we have all the elements to make a decision. If you make other types of decisions regard-
December 3, 1980

ing this issue then I think it will be against the public interest and against regional and local interests in this area. That is an important dimension of this issue.
I would have many other things to add. I would have liked to speak about Ungava Bay, James Bay, Fort Chimo, Sugluk and some other communities. Maybe we can come back on the subject at a later time. Perhaps 1 should let the minister answer. 1 know that this is a broad subject, that time is limited but I think that our people are becoming restless and the time has now come to act.


Denis Éthier: The minister has approximately a minute and a half in which to reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I say the following, for the record. [Translation]
I listened with a great deal of pleasure of course to the impassionated speech by the hon. member for Manicouagan who spoke of the individual member's frustrations, and I understand that, i must add, however, that in the two examples he gave he won his case. Fie forgot to mention it for both Havre-Saint-Pierre and Baie-Comeau. Fie at least got part of what he wanted, which shows that time and patience are more productive than strength and frenzy. But I sympathize with this and if I had more time 1 would speak of the frustrations of ministers and public servants. Despite the impression to the contrary that ministers and public servants may sometimes give, we also suffer from not being able to grant all requests made to us, especially when they are justified as in so many cases.
I also want to say that there is a sense of frustration, but I am not going to whine on the floor of the House, on the part of public servants and ministers, and it is annoying for anybody not to be able to please everyone.
Finally, it is a question of dollars. My department had a small airport aid program of limited scope. It had $3 million, which was taken away before I arrived, so 1 cannot accept responsibility for what was done before my time, no doubt for very good reasons. That was what the restraint program required at that time. We could theorize at length on the priority concept. What is a priority? A very nice phrase from the hon. member. There are less necessary things that some view as luxuries and necessities to others, and some necessary things that appear as luxuries. That could lead to a philosophic discourse on the concept of luxury and the concept of the necessary. We all know very well that what was a luxury yesterday could be necessary today. That also applies to us, as members of Parliament. 1 am doing everything I can to revive that small assistance program for small airports to provide for the cases the hon. member has referred to, but as a rule my department-and I say so without affectation-has suffered greatly in the area of investments for airports and equipment. The figures will tell you that five or six years ago the budget
Supply
was around $250 million. It is now down to $85 million or $95 million. Obviously all that shows, and the result is that fewer good causes can be accommodated.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. Before recognizing the next member to speak, I should like to indicate that the Chair is faced with some problem because of the change of turns which took place by the consent of two members, the hon. member for Manicouagan and the hon. member for Lisgar. Subsequent discussions indicate that an hon. member to my right ordinarily would be the next member to be recognized. The difficulty the Chair faces is the proper proportion of speakers. As a result of comments made to me a few moments ago, I will recognize the hon. member for Mississauga North, but in doing so the Chair will ensure the proper ratio is preserved and that hon. members on both sides get the proper amount of their time.


Mr. Knowles:: Flear, hear!


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about the progress the government has made to date on the transportation of hazardous goods. I think it is an appropriate thing for a member from Mississauga to do, a year after the famous Mississauga derailment.
On the anniversary date of the derailment a conference took place in Toronto which attracted international experts and produced a lot of opinions about the government's progress so far. One person who was sharply critical of the federal government and its standards a year ago was the mayor of Mississauga. Subsequently I spoke with her about the government's progress over the past year, and I think 1 can fairly say that some genuine progress has been made of which we now can be proud. I should like the minister to give us a progress report on this matter, because as I travel around Mississauga I am asked regularly whether in fact a similar accident can be prevented.
I have served on the transport committee and had the pleasure of working on the two bills passed last spring. The first bill brought container standards up to international levels, and the second and more famous one dealt with the domestic transportation of hazardous goods.
Linder the second law we were able to bring about standards which affect both accident prevention and accident reaction. In that law we allowed for the provision of regulations which will enforce safe standards for designing containers, packages, and moving equipment. We require proper labelling and handling so that ordinary people who must deal with these goods will know what is going on and not only how to react after an accident but how to prevent one. Also in this bill there is a provision for inspections to ensure the standards we set actually stick. The labelling and inspection powers we have set out will also help us-and this was a crucial point raised at the conference; undoubtedly it will be a point which Mr. Justice Samuel Grange will discuss-to react properly after an accident, as well as to prevent an accident ahead of time.

December 3, 1980
Supply
The work we undertook in the spring was in order to give the government the power, capacity or authority to do it. It does not necessarily mean that the government will have the will-power or the desire to do it, but I was heartened by the progress of the Department of Transport. Indeed it is an indication that the department has the will-power and desire to prevent future derailments like the one at Mississauga.
1 should like to refer to an article which appeared in The Financial Post dated November 29, in which an unidentified federal official said the following:
"The act provides for the setting of safety standards for the equipping of a means of transport. If we feel that a certain regulatory agency is slow to regulate standards ... we can write them into our regulations. We may be stepping on a few toes, but it has to be done."
Comments such as those indicate a real desire to go ahead and get the job done, and not just to put a lot of cosmetic legislation into place.
If I ask the minister to reply now, his report will be very short because of the remaining time. I wonder if I might leave with him until tomorrow the idea that 1 should like a comment on the progress. I should like him to comment on his negotiations with the provinces and his review of his own regulations. 1 should like him to take a look at the ways he has beefed up his inspection standards and personnel. I should like to know something about his budget commitments. Perhaps he can tell us about the sources of information which will be set up for individual communities so that they have access to information to help prevent accidents and to react to accidents. By setting the law in place we in fact indicated we were very serious about this question and that we were not going through simple cosmetic procedures. 1 hope the minister will give us the details which will inspire some confidence in the people in my area, so that they will know another accident like this is not likely to happen.
In view of the fact that it would be logical to break my discussion at this point, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Huntington:: There is one minute to go.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 4, 1980