1980-05-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that, for the first time since the inception of DREE, Newfoundland does not have a forestry agreement with Ottawa, that the cash flow under DREE agreements with Newfoundland will decline from approximately $60 million a year to under $40 million during this year, that the Forestry 2 agreement, a land survey and mapping agreement, an amendment to the Nordco agreement and a new Nordco agreement have been ready for execution for months, with a coastal Labrador agreement pending as well, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion attend to urgent matters in his department, including correspondence and telexes from the premier of Newfoundland, and that the minister sign immediately the Forestry 2 agreement, the land survey and mapping agreement, the Nordco amendment and new Nordco agreement, and the coastal Labrador agreement so that work can commence in Newfoundland and Labrador under these agreements immediately, supplying needed facilities and creating needed employment.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLISHING
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Since companies which receive grants under the Canadian book publishing program do not have to show how these
moneys are spent, and since the Secretary of State has already issued a cheque for nearly $300,000 to Macmillan of Canada under this program, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House instruct the minister to take immediate steps to ensure that the money will be used for the aggressive promotion and marketing of Canadian books now that the company has been sold to Gage Educational Publishing.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the president of Eastern Provincial Airways has said that the airline may have to shut down some of its local routes, that the reason given was the Canadian Transport Commission's decision to extend CP Air's service to Halifax, that the former temporary prime minister and his party overwhelmingly supported CP Air's application to extend service to Halifax, and that these Atlantic communities depend on EPA's regional carrier service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Minister of Transport guarantee to the residents of Atlantic Canada the continuation of EPA's regional carrier service to all communities presently receiving these services, and that EPA be granted the Halifax-Toronto route instead of Canadian Pacific Airlines.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, in view of the success of trucking grain from Manitoba to Thunder Bay,

May 2, 1980
especially in creating an alternative to the railroads in grain handling and transportation and, further, that this development has increased the grain transportation capacity in our region, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That trucking operations not be curtailed through the imposition of government regulations which would make the trucking of grain from Manitoba to Thunder Bay impossible.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROJECTS FOR EASTERN CANADA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Despite the government's admission of the danger of dependence upon foreign oil as the source of energy generation in east coast provinces, alternate energy projects like Cape Breton coal development and construction of the eastern extension of the natural gas pipeline are being delayed. I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to prepare and present immediately a plan to implement alternate energy projects in eastern Canada and include a schedule for the construction of the natural gas pipeline extension to reduce eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the decision yesterday by the British Columbia Supreme Court to award $458,700 damages to three firms in Surrey, British Columbia, who were deceived into buying radioactive waste while under the impression that it was land fill, and in light of the fact that the award was given because this material was considered harmful, yet more of this waste exists on other property in Surrey but cannot be removed because an appropriate disposal site has yet to be found, I
move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House immediately authorize the Atomic Energy Control Board to remove this waste to the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited waste site at Chalk River.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNO) FISHERIES VESSEL SUBSIDIES-FORMS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY FISHERMEN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Recently, the government changed the requirements for fishermen receiving vessel subsidies from the federal government. Whereas it is now necessary for fishermen in western Canada to fill in a myriad of bureaucratic forms which previously were unnecessary, and whereas in light of these developments many fishermen in remote communities may be discouraged or prevented from purchasing new vessels, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That in the opinion of this House the government should take immediate steps to eliminate these needless bureaucratic requirements and to ensure that the procedures for necessary vessel subsidy will be the same as they were prior to the 1980 fiscal year.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that when the Canada West Foundation phoned the office of the Minister of Employment and Immigration two days ago to determine the status of their application for a student summer employment grant, the minister's officials stated delays were due to tardiness by the member of Parliament, and given that I returned my analysis of the applications prior to the minister's deadline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees):
May 2, 1980

That this House calls on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to tell his officials to stop fallaciously blaming the MPs for their own bureaucratic incompetence.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of locating postal lock-boxes as far as two blocks' distance away from a householder and calling this "suburban service" which is a misnomer of Orwellian proportions, and since older subdivisions receive doorstep letter carrier service while new residential areas are condemned to suburban service, and since awarding of an inferior service to one set of taxpayers and a superior one for their neighbours is unjust and discriminatory, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House urge the Postmaster General to halt the expansion of suburban service forthwith and to proceed with letter carrier delivery as rapidly as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning branches of the Canadian Legion in eastern Ontario and throughout Canada with regard to the proposed move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island announced a year ago by the Liberal government, which constitutes blatant political patronage that the Progressive Conservative administration was saddled with. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
In view of the objections of dozens of Canadian Legion branches across Canada to this completely unjustified action, that this House requests the government to immediately cancel all plans for the movement of DVA to Prince Edward Island, leaving the department where it now is and where it is better located to serve the veterans of this country.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I would like to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the concern and sympathetic position which Canada has already taken toward refugees, as most recently demonstrated in the case of the Indo-Chinese refugees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Mennonite families of Canada who are now facing deportation, even though their parents were born in Canada and moved to Mexico, where these families were not informed of the regulation that they would have had to state their intention prior to their twenty-fourth birthday to remain Canadian citizens, be given the same consideration as other refugees and be granted Canadian landed immigrant status on compassionate grounds.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the plight of potato producers in British Columbia.
In view of the fact that the actions of successive Liberal governments have virtually eliminated the french fried potato industry in British Columbia, thus destroying a major market for B.C. potatoes, and in view of the fact that potatoes imported from Washington state and Oregon are undermining Canadian producers by flooding the B.C. market with cheap potatoes from large factory farms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the government move immediately to impose a seasonal tariff to protect British Columbia potato farmers from low-cost, imported spuds, by implementing the fast track method which was devised by the previous Progressive Conservative minister of agriculture and announced by him on October 22 of last year.

May 2, 1980
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question I would like to have addressed to the Minister of Finance. In his absence, I will direct it to whoever would presume to be the acting prime minister.
Given the notice by Saudi Arabia and Mexico in the last few days of their intention to significantly increase oil prices, and recognizing that this will immediately cancel out the $1 billion that we now understand the government has found a way to secure from the total oil dollar package, can the acting prime minister indicate to the House today where it is he intends to find and pay for this lost $1 billion which, of course, will result from the pending increases in oil that we will learn about on May 7 from OPEC?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have been reflecting on and admiring the quality of the answer that was given by the Minister of State.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: One might refer to the fact that we had a discussion on that yesterday in this very House. A number of possibilities were indicated. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-rightly, in my humble view-has repeatedly said that he is not going to comment on a daily basis on the consultations in which he is presently involved.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it occurs to the acting prime minister, humble though he would lead us to believe, that it is a fact that Atlantic Canada is dependent upon a significant amount of imported oil.
We would like to know from what source the government intends to raise the money to pay for this oil and thus enhance the possibility of secure oil supplies for that part of Canada. This is a very serious question. We now face a $4.3 billion oil compensation deficit. Where is the government going to get the money to pay for it? How can we in Atlantic Canada feel assured that we can afford to buy the imported oil that we require to sustain ourselves?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 can understand the hon. member's curiosity, but the answer to his query will be given in due course.


ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ATLANTIC REGION
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows quite well that all negotiations on the domestic oil price are under way, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been doing considerable work in that field, that the Minister of Finance has begun a preliminary consideration of the next budget, taking into account those negotiations as well as their results in the preparation of that budget. The hon. member will then obtain a more explicit answer to his question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I think I would prefer the "Stengelese" of the Minister of Transport, who in fact is the acting prime minister, to that kind of gobbledygook, because the question is very important.
I want to Find out from this government whether before the Minister of Energy embarked on his tour-for which we wish him well-as he visits the provinces, if advice given to him included advice to seek the support of the non-producing provinces for further increases in the total oil dollar that is now available. What I am seeking is information as to how the government intends to replace the $1 billion that has been wiped out in the last 24 hours.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question which might have been directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, but since it involves general policy I will direct it to the acting prime minister.
The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that the budget introduced in December, 1979, contained a special provision pertaining to Atlantic Canada's dependence on foreign oil as a source of electrical generation. Under this special provision, Nova Scotians would have been protected from additional costs of electrical generation caused by oil price increases through federal grants which would have exceeded, in total, $300 million.
Does the acting prime minister agree that such an assistance program is justified, and will he assure the House that his government will provide the same or a similar assistance program when his made-in-Canada price is established?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will pass the question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I cannot help underlining at this point that the record of the government in terms of protecting consumers, particularly in the importing provinces, is an exceptional one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 2, 1980


Howard Edward Crosby: I appreciate the difficulties under which the acting prime minister operates in this field, but these are matters of great concern to the people of Atlantic Canada.
In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, the premiers have announced that if this program of assistance is continued, the price of electrical energy can be maintained in 1980 and 1981 despite increases in the price of oil. I should like to know whether the acting prime minister, or anybody else on the government side, can assure us that this assistance will be continued and that electrical prices will not be increased, as they would not have been increased under the Progressive Conservative budget.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because of his very special interest in that area, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will obviously bear that in mind when he prepares his budget.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for CMHC. Since Canada is suffering the most serious housing shortage in recent history, with a drop of 17 per cent in housing starts predicted for 1980, and since those who are suffering most are tenants who will never be able to own a home, will the minister tell us what action he intends to take to solve this housing problem, particularly in regard to renters who are paying well over 30 per cent of their incomes for shelter?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity, at the beginning of this week, of speaking to the minister responsible for housing in the province of British Columbia and assessing at first-hand some of the problems in the riding of the hon. member who raised this question.
I certainly share her concern. I intend to speak with all the provincial ministers with whom 1 have not yet spoken, and I can assure the hon. member that the question of the supply of rental accommodation is high on the priority list of both my department and of the corporation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I appreciate that the minister was in British Columbia and listening intently to the concerns of the west last weekend, with no commitments being made. However, his own CMHC report shows that Vancouver has the worst housing crisis in North America, and that cities like Calgary and Victoria are not far behind. In Vancouver, over a quarter of the population has housing problems: some 11,000 people, for example, have inadequate housing and there is a minus zero vacancy rate and a migration of 25,000 to that region.
Oral Questions
Will the minister be specific and tell us what measures he plans to take to alleviate these problems in cities which are suffering from huge migration?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the problem is not necessarily one which can be addressed by the federal government or by the corporation itself. The whole question of housing, as hon. members can well appreciate, is one which involves many jurisdictions. For example, I am heartened to see that in the province of Alberta this week, that province redirected $60 million from its surplus toward addressing problems in some of the tight market areas there.
As I indicated-and I will repeat it- I am working with the ministers from the provinces. I hope there will be a federal response, but the response will be one in co-operation with the provinces.


REQUEST SOCIAL HOUSING ALLOCATIONS BE INCREASED
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, my Final supplementary is to the acting prime minister, who, I believe is the Minister of Transport.
Given the fact that the minister responsible for CMHC a week or so ago tabled information showing that this government has failed by some 9,000 units of housing to meet the demand of Canadians for non-profit and co-operative housing, and that this housing is essential as a First step in dealing with our housing crisis, and since co-operative and non-profit housing groups-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please come quickly to the question?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the acting prime minister reverse this cutback policy, go to the cabinet and insist on an increase in government allocations for social housing in 1980?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will pass the message on to the Prime Minister and I am sure he will consult with the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1 am quite sure the minister himself has borne all factors in mind in his decisions.


URGENCY OF SOLVING PROBLEMS OF RENTERS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of his answer in this House this morning, would he explain why in the Vancouver Sun earlier this week he is quoted as saying that he identifies the problem of rental housing as second in urgency?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the answer is quite apparent. The answer is that I was asked in this House upon taking my portfolio to respond to

May 2, 1980
Oral Questions
the needs of people facing mortgage renewals. It is history that this government has responded to that very serious problem, and that was our initial response.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the murder of a local citizen, allegedly by an inmate from the Mountain prison in British Columbia, can the minister advise this House and the community what measures or changes in policy he is contemplating to ensure the safety of the residents of that area?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 have asked for a report on that particular incident, but I have learned in the meantime that the Mountain penitentiary has only a single fence around it to protect it. Double fence was intended to be built, but it had been delayed because of a decision about construction inside the yard. I have ordered a second fence to be built, and that is currently being built.
In view of the incident referred to, that news is small comfort but, as hon. members will be aware, the escaped inmate has been captured by the RCM Police.


Harvie Andre: And he will be out on the weekend with a pass.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Considering the series of incidents involving inmates from penal institutions in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, including the abduction and murder of a female employee of an all-night store, allegedly by an inmate, has the minister ordered a full inquiry into all these incidents in order that the legitimate fears and growing resentments of the communities may be allayed, and confidence in the Canadian penitentiary service restored ?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member if there had been an increase in the rate of escapes across the country or in any particular region. That is not the case. 1 am still concerned about every incident and, as hon. members know, I have received a report on each of the escapes. However, I do not think the situation justifies a general investigation of the problem which is no more serious now than it has been in the past. I am approaching them on a case-by-case basis.


EXPORT TAX ON HYDROELECTRICITY-DISCUSSION WITH PROVINCES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should
like to direct my question to the acting prime minister, in the
absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and ask him whether the government is considering the imposition of an export tax on hydroelectric sales from Canadian provinces to the United States. If this is the case, has the government passed this intention on to the provinces or given any indication to the provinces that they want to enter into negotiations on the imposition of such a tax?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat unfair-because this question has been around for so many years-that the hon. member should ask me, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to answer it. It is not a new matter at all. I am not aware of an intention such as the one the hon. member refers to, but I suggest that the hon. member for Provencher ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Monday.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The acting prime minister might take some small comfort from his words, but he is acting prime minister and he is speaking on behalf of the government in this House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where are the rest of them?


An hon. Member:: Inform yourself.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to ask the acting prime minister the following question: The Prime Minister keeps insisting that the federal government will realize the same amount of revenue from its total energy package as that contained in the December 11 budget, while at the same time not imposing any excise tax and keeping the price of oil to the $4 a barrel level.
I should like to ask the acting prime minister whether the government is considering imposing such an export tax on hydroelectric sales to the United States, and whether such contemplated revenue is part of the total package of revenue which the federal government is considering?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think I should protest to a certain extent: this is somewhat unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the government were going to change their policy to any extent on this important matter, it would not be announced by the acting prime minister or the acting minister of energy, mines and resources on a Friday morning. My hon. friend is not being fair in pressing for an answer at this very moment.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: My
supplementary question is for the acting prime minister. What does he do here?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 2, 1980


SALE OF 25 PER CENT INTEREST OF PETROCAN IN ARCTIC PILOT PROJECT
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It was recently announced that PetroCan would sell a 25 per cent interest in the Arctic pilot project to private interests led by Dome Petroleum. Can the minister tell the House why the decision was made to reduce our national oil company's interest in this project despite a commitment to expand its role in frontier development, and was this a full cabinet decision?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 know from speaking to the chairman of PetroCan that it is very much his desire to carry out government policy and to diminish foreign ownership in this whole vital resource area. That sale was undoubtedly designed to afford further capital for PetroCan to invest elsewhere and still maintain majority ownership.


Peter Ittinuar: Madam Speaker, I think the minister is ad libbing in his answer. Can he give the House an unequivocal assurance that the reorganization of this project will not lessen Petro-Canada's control over all aspects of the project, and especially that the dialogue between the people of eastern Arctic and PetroCan on socioeconomic issues will not be disrupted or impeded in any way?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, 1 am encouraged to hear the hon. member indicate that PetroCan has been carrying on a useful dialogue with the native population in the territories. 1 feel very certain that PetroCan will maintain control of the project to which the hon. member referred.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On several occasions I have drawn to the minister's attention since this session began, the very real need for including the county of Northumberland in the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement.
As this need has recently become even more urgent by the moving of the Eldorado plant to northern Ontario and the closing down of the very large Winchester-Western plant in Cobourg, would the minister advise the House what progress he is making in bringing the county of Northumberland into the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First, Madam Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the dedication of the hon. member for Northumber-
Oral Questions
land, because he has made extensive and repeated representations to me about the plight and the problems facing his constituency. Second, I should like to assure the hon. member that within two weeks, at the most, I will try to reach a decision about his representation. Third, perhaps I could appeal to members in all corners of the House, including the Prime Minister and all other ministers and the official opposition, to help me arrive at means to help Canadians, wherever they live, achieve equal opportunity.
We have to decide where our priorities lie. Should we restrict expenditures, or will we have the means to help Northumberland county and other ridings facing economic problems? I have looked at the economic indicators in the riding of Northumberland and have found them to be very close to the indicators for the province of Ontario as a whole. However, I understand that Northumberland county has specific problems, and I will try to deal with them and give the hon. member an answer within two weeks at the most.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACTION TO IMPROVE ECONOMY OF NEWFOUNDLAND
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Does the minister realize that, for the first time since his department was created, there is no DREE forestry agreement entered into with Newfoundland, that the cash flow from DREE agreements in Newfoundland has declined from $60 million, on an average, for the last five years to something like $30 million, and that the forestry agreement, the land mapping survey agreement, the Nordco agreement and the coastal Labrador agreement are all waiting for his attention and have been waiting now on DREE, passed by the Treasury Board in the last two or three months?
Will the minister also explain to the House why he is not replying to correspondence from the premier of Newfoundland, who is also the minister of intergovernmental affairs, on these questions? When are we going to get some action? Does the minister realize that Newfoundland is still regionally disadvantaged and has not yet come into its great millenium?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised by the approach taken by the hon. member. I can assure him that I know of the plight and the need of the province of Newfoundland. He has referred to some areas where his own government, the former Conservative government, rejected appeals put to them by the province of Newfoundland.
I do not want to deal with regional disparities in a partisan way. I have said that the member of Parliament for each region, whatever his party, will be my privileged partner in the fight against disparities, and the hon. member can rest assured that because Newfoundland may be the most needy part of the country, it will have my closest attention.

May 2, 1980
House of Commons


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have not a doubt that the minister has very good intentions, but what Newfoundland is waiting for is some action. The agreements to which I referred were approved and passed through Treasury Board months ago and still have not been executed. The government of Newfoundland cannot even get any response to their correspondence or telexes from the minister's department.
I do not know whether this is a partisan matter, or what the matter is, but it is a matter that requires immediate attention because this year the cash flow of DREE in Newfoundland is cut in half so far, and all of these agreements are to be attended to. Can the minister give the House an assurance that there will be some action taken in the next week or two to deal with these very pressing matters, because employment opportunities are just vanishing in Newfoundland, with its very heavy unemployment this year and a very low construction program?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, the budget with which I am dealing for the moment is to all practical extents the one that was decided by the preceding administration.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no money for that either.


Pierre De Bané: For instance, take the Nordco one: it was the Treasury Board of the previous administration which rejected the appeal put by the provincial government of Newfoundland for an extension of the money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: So, I am really very strapped with the financial constraints 1 have. Even if we do not answer or do not take one more commitment, the financial resources of the department now are stretched to the limit. I have barely enough just to honour the commitments that were made by our administration before and the hon. member's administration.
What I am saying is that we must decide our priorities, all of us. Are we going to give the means to help those poor areas of Canada which desperately need economic development? Give me the means, and my job is to answer positively to all of those requests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Secretary General of NATO, Dr. Joseph Luns, whom I thank for his visit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE CANADA
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given notice. As the minister knows, there is growing public concern in areas of the city of Nepean, notably Manordale, Woodvale, Trend Village, Arlington Woods, Meri-vale Gardens and other areas, concerning the proposed extension of the Knoxdale-Hunt Club arterial which will necessarily cut through lands owned by Agriculture Canada. There is a proposal that that be done.
Has an agreement been made between the Government of Canada and the regional municipality or any other local government group which would allow that extension to be carried forward?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, there has been no agreement whatsoever as far as our department is concerned, and no notice whatsoever as far as our department is concerned.
1 would be surprised if the province of Ontario would be allowing that kind of thing to take place, to construct a four-lane expressway through the agriculture research station that we think is also important. We will be doing some further checking, but so far we have not found anything at all.


IMMIGRATION
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since Canada has shown a great deal of sympathy for refugees in recent years-as most recently demonstrated in the case of Indo-Chinese refugees-would the minister consider showing the same concern for the Mennonite families now in Canada who have come here from Mexico?
They are able to find work or they have jobs promised to them if they are permitted to work, yet they are facing deportation even though their parents were born in Canada or moved from Mexico years ago. These families were not informed of the regulation that they had to state their intention prior to their twenty-fourth birthday to remain Canadian citizens. Would the minister consider giving landed immigrant status to these people and to other Mennonite families who were not informed of the regulations, on compassionate grounds?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this is a long-standing case which has been with us many years. What we are doing with the Mennonite workers who are presently in Canada is indicating to them that if they wish to apply for
May 2, 1980

status in this country and to apply under the Citizenship Act to redeem their citizenship, we will stay any deportation orders or any proceedings against them.
Also, they have full access under the act to apply for refugee status. However, the act indicates that if they want to apply for landed immigrant status-that is a very different set of categories-they would have to leave the country and apply from their country of origin. But we are now looking at the case and we have forestalled any action on deportation at the present moment.


David Orlikow: Would the minister consider permitting them to go just to the closest United States port of entry and applying for a landed immigrant status from there, rather than going all the way back to Mexico, as they probably have to do?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no restriction on our part as to where an individual may apply for landed status. If they are able to do so from the United States, that is certainly permissible with us. But as the hon. member knows, we have had some difficulty with the United States in recent months in using the border stations as a place for application. 1 know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has raised that issue with his American counterpart. It is under negotiation and we hope to have that problem solved, but certainly we are prepared at any point to accept their application.


FORMULA FOR BLENDED PRICE OF OIL
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the acting prime minister. In this connection the acting prime minister certainly has had a role in determining such a vital point of government policy as the blended price.
Will he kindly inform the House or give us some sort of intelligent interpretation of how the blended price or the fair return element to oil companies of the blended price is being arrived at? Will we see the oil producing industry as well as the gas industry set up under some form of public utility control so that each individual company whose costs are different from others will still be entitled to that fair return?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was here a few days ago when the Prime Minister explained all that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Being only the Minister of Transport, I am sure that I cannot do better than he can.


An hon. Member:: Do you understand it?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will leave it at that. I will send a copy of the answer to my hon. friend wherein the Prime Minister explained the blended price.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have heard what the Prime Minister attempted to do, shall we say his flights in cloud cuckooland when it comes to the oil industry-


An hon. Member:: Low blow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and his ideas with regard to what are costs and the facilities and difficulties of establishing costs for individual fields, individual producing companies-all of this. Oil production is not running across the prairies on a pogo stick and simply making a hole and expecting oil or gas to come out of it. That is what the Liberal policy looks like.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister who took part in establishing this policy tell us what he considers to be the method they will use for establishing a fair return?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend was probably not in the House a few minutes ago-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -when I answered a similar question. At that time, I simply said that it has been the policy of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not to comment on the development of negotiations now ongoing with the provinces, the producers and others. The remarks my hon. friend has just made are really a good introduction to the speech he will obviously make when the subject comes up for debate in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: That is truly Paul Martin.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He was a good man.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the importance of direct employment programs in high unemployment areas, especially Ontario, and considering that the former Progressive Conservative government cut off this program last fall, I wonder if the minister will be instituting such a program this fall for the high unemployment areas.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as we indicated very clearly in the Speech from the Throne, we intend to announce new job-creation programs as soon as the proposals are examined by cabinet. After we undertake consultation with the provinces,

May 2, 1980
Oral Questions
and some of the employers and union groups, we will be in a position to make announcements in this House that will correct the actions taken by the previous government in cancelling the direct work programs.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, the minister appeared in this House and made reference to the initiatives of the Ontario government, through the Ontario minister of the environment, Dr. Parrott, and his new control order for Inco. The hon. minister had said that this was an important and courageous stand. At the same time, the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario was referring to the same "important and courageous stand" as pathetic.
There are those in the United States who do not want an abatement of the acid rain situation and who will seize upon any disagreement in Canada to add to their arguments against the very efforts which the hon. minister is making. Can the minister explain to this House why it is that he had no consultations with Dr. Smith, the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario, and whether since yesterday he has spoken to his colleague in the province of Ontario and straightened him out?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, 1 think as a general rule that political battles at the federal level should be fought out here, and that political battles at the provincial level should be fought out at the provincial level.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, given the fact that any open conflict between the federal government and the provinces in these very important months of negotiation to get agreement with the United States is very dangerous, and I know that the minister has been working to make sure that such a thing does not happen, can the minister assure this House that he will consult with his Liberal counterparts in the provincial parties to make sure that the minister and the federal government are not scuttled in their negotiation attempts with the United States?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, 1 intend to consult very widely. I know that the steps that were taken yesterday will be welcomed by those in the United States who are fighting to achieve the same objective that we are trying to reach in Canada, that of considerably reducing these dangerous emissions. I know that the hon. member is very interested in this issue and 1 welcome the kind of concerns that he has expressed.
1 can tell the hon. member that I will be consulting very widely and that I will be making the case as effectively as I can to our American counterparts. I know they feel that the steps which were taken yesterday, both in Ontario and those announced here, will help them in their struggle to improve the situation in the United States.


PACIFIC RIM CONFERENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of State (Trade). Our government had undertaken plans to hold a Pacific area trade conference this year. Can the minister advise me whether or not it is his government's intention to proceed with those plans?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: Madam Speaker, in order to help achieve the industrial objectives of western Canada, this government is paying attention most favourably to the recommendations concerning the Pacific Rim conference. There are, however, a few changes which 1 would like to have made to the original format. 1 will be discussing these changes with my colleagues and announcing our decision to the House in due course.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday, I asked the minister whether any aid to Chrysler Canada would have an adverse impact on the economic development programs of this country. I received a very ambiguous answer. Something has come to my attention quite recently which illustrates the importance of this concern.
For some months CAE Industries has been working with General Motors on an aluminum casting plant for transmission cases for GM's new energy-efficient X cars. A relatively small amount of financial assistance was required for the project. The Ontario government has said that they would provide this assistance. It only requires some action by the federal government to get the project in motion. The project would mean 200 to 400 jobs and $20 million to $30 million a year in business for a strong, growing Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My question to the minister is: Why did it take a notification from CAE Industries that they had lost this business before he would take action and notice the urgency of
May 2, 1980

this matter? Would the minister advise the House whether or not his preoccupation with the Chrysler Canada decision has caused him to ignore the plight of Canadian-owned companies?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, as my speech last night to the automotive parts manufacturers indicated-and it received a very favourable reception-I am giving due attention to all segments of Canadian industry, in particular the automotive parts manufacturers and generally to the Canadian-owned segment of our economy.
The whole matter with respect to the CAE application was under consideration before any statements were made by them about their relationship with General Motors as it presently stands. The matter was under consideration and it remains under active consideration. I hope to have an answer on the matter very soon.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It has been reported to me by people in Manitoba that a delay in approving the Summer Youth Employment projects scheduled for that province, as well as other provinces, has caused people suited for these jobs to seek other employment, and that this has put back the scheduling of the summer programming of the groups concerned.
Can the minister tell the House whether or not some changes or announcements are pending related to these delays, and when these groups can expect to have this uncertainty cleared up?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the only reason for delay is the change of government and the requirement to re-establish some of the criteria for the Summer Youth Employment program. All the applications from the provinces are now being processed as quickly as possible. Announcements are being made. Several provinces have already received, or will be receiving, their announcements this week. I expect that any further announcements about the matter will be made very soon.
There really is no delay. Announcements are on time according to the schedule we announced in a press release some time in early April.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the groups to whom 1 spoke this morning had every expectation that they would hear whether or not their project was approved this past Wednesday. It seems to me that there has been a delay, but the delay is not a problem in and of itself. I am asking the minister, why
Oral Questions
the delay, and when can these groups expect to hear whether or not their programs will go forward?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I realize that there are always very high expectations, but we did indicate very clearly that we would be aiming at a May 15 target date for the announcement of these projects in those provinces from which we have received applications, from both the groups involved and also on the advice of members of Parliament, which is a system we reintroduced.
As far as I understand the situation, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and other members of the New Democratic Party from that area have not submitted their advice, and that is one of the reasons why we have had problems.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board. I am sure the minister' is aware that under the current pricing structure as it is outlined in the two-price wheat act, wheat sold for domestic, human consumption is considerably below the export marketing price, resulting in rather extensive subsidies provided by the producers to the consumers. These subsidies can amount to as much as $1 million per week.
Would the minister tell the House whether or not his government is giving any consideration toward amending the two-price system so that it will more accurately reflect the increased costs of production and more accurately correspond with world prices.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I had a conversation with the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board on that very subject yesterday. If there are announcements to be made in the coming weeks, they will be made by him. I can assure the hon. member that he is looking into the matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, having regard to the fact that the act under which this two-price system was introduced is scheduled to expire on July 31, 1980, could the minister indicate whether or not he has had discussions with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board as to the disposition of the act? Will another act be introduced, or will the existing act be extended?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have had discussions with the minister. However, this matter falls under his jurisdiction and any announcements should first come from him.

May 2, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen PRIVILEGE


MR. NIELSEN-ALLEGED DELETION IN OFFICIAL REPORT
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise now in the hope that 1 can contribute to getting this session off on the right foot as far as alterations to Hansard are concerned. Because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not in his seat today I intend to raise the question in detail on Monday, but in order to afford you, Madam Speaker, the officers of the House, Hansard and the staff of the Prime Minister the opportunity to check the substance of the question I intend to raise on Monday, 1 might refer them to page 598 of yesterday's Hansard. In the right hand column, the last paragraph but one, the Prime Minister is recorded as having said:
We believe that the companies themselves and the producers themselves have some contribution to make in this.
Now, there has been the deletion of two words. Two entire words have been deleted from that sentence. I heard them clearly and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie) heard them clearly, but so that there would be no doubt, the tapes of yesterday's proceedings were checked today. The two words that were deleted are "the producing" so that the sentence would have read: "We believe that the companies themselves and the producing the producers themselves have some contribution to make in this."
Madam Speaker, I think we should get this session off to the proper start with respect to significant deletions, alterations to Hansard. It may be that the Prime Minister and his staff did not make this deletion. It may be that Hansard themselves made it. But it is my belief and the belief of those of us on this side that whatever is said in this House should be recorded faithfully, completely and accurately.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose the hon. member will be giving me written notice of the question of privilege.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Concerning that kind of innuendo, of course I would rather let the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) give the necessary details on his return from Montreal where he is today delivering an important speech on the unity of this country which we all want united and strong. My colleague should understand that, in spite of the many innuendoes heard during question period about the absence of the Prime Minister, his absence is justified indeed. We all know that the Prime Minister is now speaking to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce to plead the cause of Canada. As for the hon. member's comments about the answer given by the Prime Minister to a question put to him yesterday, I am sure that the Prime Minister will be in a position at the first opportunity to give the necessary explanations and remove any doubt resulting from the remarks made by my colleague.


MR. BLAIKIE-SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT-DENIAL OF DELAY IN SUBMITTING PROJECTS BY NDP MEMBERS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a question of privilege. Madam Speaker. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has implied that the delay in the approval of Summer Youth Employment projects is because of the failure of New Democratic Party members of Parliament to take their responsibilities seriously vis-a-vis the minister's recommendations that members submit indications of which projects in their ridings they would deem worthy of funding.
The minister knows full well that members of this party are not in a position where they have delayed approval of projects, but they have made representations to the minister that he change the way in which approval is given for funding. The minister asked that there be input from members of Parliament as to which projects should be worthy of funding, but did not, on the one hand, give members any final say so that they would be responsible for the input they gave into the funding process, nor, on the other hand, did he make provision for any sort of community input.
We made representations to the minister that if he was willing to set up a community participation process for input, if he was willing to set up committees at the community level, we would be willing to go ahead with that.
This would have been consistent with all the rhetoric about community participation that the Minister of Employment and Immigration was so fond of indulging in prior to his election to government.
We did send in our forms and we indicated to the minister what our position was on this. There is no way that our actions have in any way delayed approval of these projects; if anything, they should have speeded it up because he did not have to go through the process of sorting out what the input of the various members of Parliament was with regard to projects in our ridings.
The implication of what the minister said with regard to our carrying out our responsibilities is wrong. It misleads the people of Manitoba, it misleads this House, and it does not do justice to the facts. I submit this should be regarded as a question of privilege. Madam Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) may have a certain difference of opinion, but he certainly does not have a question of privilege. I would just like to point out to him certain facts that would support my case.
The first is that when this government took office the procedure by which consultation would take place on a local level through members of Parliament had been totally cancelled. The previous government had decided for its own reasons not to allow any form of consultation on the local level. At that point the Summer Youth Employment program was already in progress. The announcements had already been
May 2, 1980

made, the advertisements had already gone out and applications were already being submitted.
It was our feeling, based upon a very strong commitment to the notion, that before deciding on Summer Youth Employment programs there should be some avenue by which the local community is represented and priorities judged. The best way to do that is to consult with the member of Parliament concerned. It may be that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill does not have the same respect for the role of the member of Parliament as we on this side.
I should like to point out that one of the reasons a person is elected is to speak for his or her community. There was certainly no prohibition whatsoever in the instructions or information we sent out that would have prevented the hon. member or any of his colleagues from consulting with groups in his own community in order to set up whatever form of procedure he wanted to follow.
I should also like to point out that the matter only came to my attention in a letter that I received, I believe yesterday or it may have been the day before, from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), indicating that members of the New Democratic Party caucus were not going to participate in that consultative feature.
Where the delay occurred was simply that we were waiting for them to come in. It is certainly their right if they do not want to participate or give advice and there is no compulsion for them to do so; but we were waiting for those applications. Now that we know they are not going to submit them, we will proceed with the evaluation and assessment without that kind of input.
As I say, Madam Speaker, it is their right to do that and I was not suggesting they were doing anything wrong. But the procedure was set up and we were only informed a few days ago that they would not be participating.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has raised a question of privilege to indicate his disagreement with a reply given to him by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). He should know that the question of privilege cannot be used for that purpose. What we have here is indeed a divergence of opinion with the minister and the contents of his reply; that is quite clear, I think. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to raise that question under different circumstances. For the moment I must rule that there is no ground for a question of privilege. [English]
I recognize the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), as long as he is not speaking on the question of privilege that I have just ruled upon.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the question that was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) was an important one that I had intended to rise on and address before you quickly ruled upon it.
Privilege-Mr. Blaikie


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: You are questioning the Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: The accusation comes from the opposite side, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, that I am questioning the ruling of the Speaker. He is not telling the truth because that is not what I am rising on. What I am rising on is a question that affects the privileges of all members of the House.


Mr. Chenier:: Kick him out.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) says "kick him out". I am sure an opposition is a bit of a nuisance, as described by his leader from time to time, and he would like to get rid of it entirely. But we do not operate in Canada yet as they do in Ghana, although the hon. member would like that to happen. The question that I raise affects the privileges of all members of this House and it affects the responsibilities of the minister involved in the previous question.
Even if there were a constituency advisory group, the final decision on these matters still rests with the minister. It was the practice of the Liberal government that preceded us, when asking for opinions from members of Parliament, that once the selections were made-if the member for Timmins-Chapleau will be patient he will hear the question of privilege that I am raising.


An hon. Member:: He just has a big mouth, that is all.


Erik Nielsen: The only time he opens his mouth is to change feet.
The privilege involved here is that the Liberal government that preceded us, after it had received the advice of members of Parliament on this side, would write a letter to the successful applicant for assistance saying that the minister was pleased to make that grant, making no mention of the participation of the member of Parliament. He would write to all of the unsuccessful applicants and tell them that their applications had been rejected after having consulted with their respective member of Parliament, and name him, so that the member of Parliament on this side was blamed for these rejections. That is what affects the privileges of the members of this House, and that perhaps explains the delay in the minister having these forms returned.
Perhaps the minister could rise in his place today and give his assurance as a member of the cabinet, as an hon. member of this House, that he will not follow that odious practice and blame members of Parliament on this side-I am sure that it did not happen over there-for the rejections. He might then find more co-operation. Will the minister give us that assurance? If he does not, it gives rise to a very serious question of privilege.

May 2, 1980
Tabling of Report


Madam Speaker:: The minister is entitled not to reply to this intervention if that is his choice.
Does the hon. member want to speak on a question of privilege? I will not entertain any more interventions on that question of privilege because I have already ruled on it. 1 am sorry, but I cannot accept further representations from the hon. member.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, with great respect I must rise on a question of privilege respecting my rights and duties as a member of Parliament in serving my constituents. Some of my constituents are aware of the proceedings of this House and if those constituents read the proceedings of today's House with respect to this very important question of the youth employment program, I have a university and an institute of technology in my constituency, and I and all other members of Parliament, at least in this party, have submitted applications-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 believe that if the electors of the hon. member's constituency read Hansard they will have the full benefit of the discussion that has taken place in the House and they will be able to judge-

-whether they have been deprived of their rights, whether the electors have been deprived of their rights or whether the hon. member himself has been. 1 think that it is quite clear, judging by the interventions from both sides of the House, that this is matter of divergent opinions between one or several members and the minister who replied to statements made. 1 do not think that there are grounds for a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), in both official languages, the final report of the Task Force on Unification of Armed Forces of Canada.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MCKINNON-LACK OF opportunity to debate task FORCE REPORT ON UNIFICATION OF ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the document which the minister has just tabled. The practice of never hearing a statement on motions from a minister is infringing upon the privileges of members of this House. This particular minister has managed to choose a new fighter aircraft and has signed the largest contract ever signed in Canada without a statement on motions or giving members an opportunity to discuss the matter. Now we have this very important report commissioned by the former administration submitted to this minister six weeks ago tabled without comment.
This report is of great interest to the people of Canada, to the people in the armed forces and to this House. If we are not going to be given an opportunity to understand the government's position on this report, then the normal debate that is so healthy for our democracy is going to cease happening here. What we get are press releases and it is most difficult to debate things through a press release issued by the minister somewhere, some time and replied to somewhere, some time, by the opposition.
I would like to point out that the minister, who unfortunately left the House when I rose, would have had an opportunity to indicate the government's position on this report in reply to my raising this question of privilege. There are some 30 recommendations in the report. Perhaps he could say whether he accepts half of them or all of them or when he is going to accept them. At the very least he could have said he would refer it to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for consideration.
If the important business of the government is going to be conducted in this clandestine manner without public debate in this chamber, I feel that it infringes upon the privileges of all members and of Canadians.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, because of the intervention of the hon. member, I think it is important to define a few things at this point. All of this is covered in our standing orders. What the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has just done is to make public and table a report. Nothing forces him to make a statement. Standing Order 15(3) stipulates that a minister "may", in French the word is peul, make a statement or announcement. The Minister of National Defence chose not to make one today. It is his privilege, his right to so choose; it is quite in order for him to do so.
The colleague who rose on a question of privilege, which it really is not, will have many opportunities of putting questions to the Minister of National Defence. He can do so during the oral question period that will follow tabling of this report, and
May 2, 1980

also in committee when the estimates come up for study. Moreover, between now and December 10, the opposition will have 18 days allotted to them for the discussion of the topics of their choosing. In light of this, it is unfair to claim that the opposition is being deprived of the opportunity to discuss the report tabled today by the Minister of National Defence. On the contrary! All that is in the standing orders: As a matter of fact, they are most generous and provide the hon. member and his colleagues with ample opportunities to put questions and debate the subject dealt with in the report the Minister of National Defence tabled today. In closing, Madam Speaker, this is definitely not a matter of privilege and I think hon. members should see to it that this procedure of bringing up questions of privilege should be not be abused lest it no longer be taken seriously.
It may happen on occasion that hon. members' rights are really infringed upon. I would hate to see the day-because hon. members are developing the habit of getting into all sorts of political argument under the guise of questions of privilege-when our rights are really infringed upon and the question of privilege be ruled out of order because abuse will have been too obvious in the past.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, 1 feel that I must object to what was an extraordinary statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and government House leader. He stated in essence that members of his government feel obliged to cater to the democratic responsibilities of this institution only when the rules specifically demand them; otherwise we can resort to press releases and that type of debate. That is absolutely unacceptable and it certainly infringes on the privileges of the entire nation as well as members of this House.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with two speakers from the Conservative party on this question of privilege. In both instances in the last few weeks that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has brought forward two very important positions on national defence, they have not been brought before the House. We are in a position right now where there are some very important questions to be answered with regard to the future of our armed forces, and the minister brings them in, tables them and does not allow us to debate the matter in this House.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said that we are raising these questions of privilege so often that they will not be taken seriously. 1 submit that by the type of action the Minister of National Defence has carried on in the last few weeks, Parliament will not be taken seriously in the future if we are not allowed to debate important issues, issues that will make a major difference to our armed forces in the future.
Introduction of Bills
There are some very important questions asked in this task force report. These are questions that must be answered very soon. Members of this House as the representatives of the people of Canada must be allowed to debate these questions and try and find some good solutions and answers to the problems. I urge that this question of privilege be upheld, that the minister make a statement and that we be allowed to question him on it.


Madam Speaker:: The rules are quite clear. They stipulate that the minister may make a statement when he is tabling documents. That has to mean that he may decide not to make a statement when tabling documents, if he so chooses. That may be wise or unwise; it is not for the Chair to decide. The Chair cannot force a minister to make a statement when tabling a document.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Assistant Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT


Lloyd Axworthy: for leave to introduce Bill C-23, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

['Agreed.']
Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, to amend laws relating to fiscal transfers to the provinces.

May 2, 1980
Private Members' Public Bills


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Madam Speaker:: May I refer at this point to the balloting practice which has been followed to determine the precedence for the introduction and first reading of Private Members' Public Bills. On today's order paper there are listed some 395 bills standing in the name of various hon. members.
It was not practical or possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of those bills. Might I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon in the past several sessions; namely, that we proceed to the introduction, first reading and orders for the printing of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and its being called for second reading in order to allow the Chair to consider whether there is any defect in the bills itLrespect of the practices and usages of the House.
I suggest that, by unanimous consent, all the Private Members' Public Bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject, as always, to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
In order to ensure that bills at the top of the list will not have to stand because they have not been printed and distributed when called, I am requesting the Deputy Speaker, with the co-operation of the Table officers, to give the necessary instructions to ensure that printing and distribution priorities will reflect the order determined in the draw and, to that effect, the word "printed" will be added to the order paper entry for each bill when received by the distribution branch.
Is the procedure to which I have referred agreed to by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, An Act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-202, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act (disclosure of documents).-Mr. Oberle
Bill C-203, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-204, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (provincial representation and sunlight provisions).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-205, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits-waiting period).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (maternity leave).-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of results of opinion polls).-Mr. Shields.
Bill C-209, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act (vacancies).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-210, An Act to promote the use of renewable energy.-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-211, An Act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario.-Mr. Foster.
Bill C-212, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (native status, treaties, and aboriginal rights).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reporting names of accused).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-214, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act).-Mr. Gauthier.
Bill C-215, An Act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. McKnight.
Bill C-217, An Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act.-Mr. Gurbin.
Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (parental abduction of children).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-220, An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill C-221, An Act to provide for the establishment of an authority for public use of all abandoned railway lines in Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-222, An Act to provide for a national referendum on capital punishment.-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-223, An Act respecting representation in the Canadian House of Commons.-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-224, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (educational use of programs).-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-225, An Act to promote profit sharing by employees in business.-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.
May 2, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-226, An Act respecting minerals and hydrocarbons in submarine lands adjoining the Province of Nova Scotia.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-227, An Act to amend the Railway Act (fences).- Mr. Fisher.
Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.-Mr. Lambert.
Bill C-229, An Act respecting nuclear control and administration.-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-230, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada).-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-231, An Act to establish a Bill of Rights for children.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Post Office Act.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-233, An Act to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society.-Mr. McLean.
Bill C-234, An Act to provide for the employment of handicapped persons in the federal Public Service, federal government agencies and private industries under federal jurisdiction.-Mr. Rae.
Bill C-235, An Act respecting legal tender (Braille numbers).-Mr. Mayer.
Bill C-236, An Act respecting the acquisition of land by non-Canadians.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy).-Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).
Bill C-239, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-240, An Act to give political rights to public servants below the rank of deputy minister.-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (licences).-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-242, An Act to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.-Miss Carney.
Bill C-243, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-244, An Act respecting the international land boundary between Canada and the state of Alaska.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-245, An Act to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.-Mr. Neil.
Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Official Secrets Act.-Mr. Cooper.
Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (penalty provisions).-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands).
Bill C-248, An Act establishing a moratorium on the continued development of nuclear power in Canada for the pur-
Private Members' Public Bills
poses of establishing a public inquiry into nuclear power that is followed by a national referendum.-Mr. Blaikie.
Bill C-249, An Act respecting metric measurement (voluntary adaption).-Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth).
Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Divorce Act (alimony and maintenance orders).-Mr. Huntington.
Bill C-251, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (prohibiting right to strike).-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-252, An Act to amend the constitution of Canada (federal general elections).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-254, An Act to create the territories of Nunavut and Dene-Mackenzie.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-256, An Act to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-258, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-259, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (renewable energy).-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-261, An Act to amend the Resources and Technical Surveys Act (renewable energy).-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-262, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-263, An Act respecting the use of social insurance numbers.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-264, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (non-discrimination against single workers).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-266, An Act to amend the Railway Act (movement of western grain).-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-267, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-268, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Saint-Hyacinthe.-Mr. Ostiguy.
Bill C-269, An Act to provide for collective bargaining rights for employees of the House of Commons.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-270, An Act respecting nuclear control and administration.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-271, An Act respecting the televised advertisement of beer and ale.-Mr. Friesen.
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1980
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-272, An Act to amend the Transport Act (transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous substances).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-273, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act.- Mr. Lambert.
Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-275, An Act respecting the official use of the former residence of the late Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker.-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-276, An Act to stabilize the representation in the House of Commons.-Mr. Ellis.
Bill C-277, An Act respecting financial disclosure of corporations applying for rate increases.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to capital punishment.-Mr. Lawrence.
Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (contributors).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-282, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits).-Mr. Anguish.
Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disability pension).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-284, An Act respecting environmental assessment and review.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-285, An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada and to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Federal Court Act and the Statutory Instruments Act.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-286, An Act respecting National Heritage Day.- Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-287, An Act to recognize aboriginal title in Canada.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-288, An Act to grant a pardon to all persons convicted of certain offences (Louis Riel).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Food and Drug Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act (nutritional contents on labels).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-290, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Nuclear Electricity Export Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-291, An Act to amend the British North America Act (1867) and the Canada Elections Act (proportional representation).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-292, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent electoral	list-election	period-election
expenses).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-294, An Act to create an international wilderness park for the Northern Yukon (Thomas R. Berger Park).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-295, An Act to establish a sunset law for Canada.- Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-296, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (mandatory installation of air bags in passenger vehicles).- Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-297, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-298, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-299, An Act to promote the use of solar heating.- Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-300, An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.- Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-301, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-302, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (eleven general holidays with pay).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-303, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (limitations of sittings on Mondays).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-305, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (recognition of provincial capitals).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-306, An Act respecting restrictions on foreign aid.- Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-307, An Act to develop and to promote co-generation potential of all sources of thermal electric generating stations.-Mr. Gurbin.
Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for murder)-Mr. Kushner.
Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-310, An Act to compensate the Sekani Indians for the damages suffered as a result of the construction of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-312, An Act respecting confidential communications between elected representatives and their constituents.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-313, An Act to amend the British North America Act (1867) (protection for language rights).-Mr. Allmand.
May 2, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election posters).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-315, An Act to amend the Resources and Technical Surveys Act (map quality control).-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Public Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (safety of employees).-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-318, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (prohibition of anonymous comment).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-319, An Act to regulate the disposition and development of oil and gas rights.-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-320, An Act to provide for the establishment of an average retail price for electrical energy in Canada.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-321, An Act respecting the political affiliation of Members of Parliament.-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-322, An Act to establish a referendum on nuclear power-Mr. Blaikie.
Bill C-323, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to rape).-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-324, An Act respecting the televised advertisement of beer and ale.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-325, An Act to amend the Canada Council Act (Killam-Dunn).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-328, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-329, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reinstatement of capital punishment). Mr. Guay.
Bill C-330, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (survivor's pension).-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Veterans Land Act.-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-332, An Act to provide for the accountability to Parliament of Crown agencies.-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-333, An Act to provide for pension benefits for veterans of the Spanish Civil War.-Mr. Rae.
Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Government Organization Act, 1978.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-335, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-336, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by senators, members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-337, An Act to provide for the constitution of a federal transport commission of inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents).-Mr. Forrestall.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-338, An Act to insure compensation for damages incurred through marine accidents involving carriers of noxious cargoes.-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-339, An Act respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-340, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-341, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in the province of Quebec.-Mr. Ittinuar.
Bill C-342, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (crash restraint protection devices).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-344, An Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa.-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-345, An Act to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-346, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).-Mr. Murphy.
Bill C-347, An Act respecting the cost of publishing public reports.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-348, An Act to provide for collective bargaining rights for employees of the House of Commons.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act, the Food and Drug Act and the Criminal Code.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-350, An Act respecting confidential information.- Miss Jewett.
Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (notices and advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier.
Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-353, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-354, An Act respecting a referendum on the metric conversion programme in Canada.-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-355, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (deposit).-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
Bill C-356, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (labour dispute).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-357, An Act to promote the use of alternative automobile fuels.-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-358, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-359, An Act to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-360, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (capital
gains tax).-Mr. Siddon.
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1980
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-361, An Act respecting the use of import duties and sales taxes.-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-362, An Act to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-363, An Act to amend the Energy Emergency Supplies Act, 1979.-Mr. Andre.
Bill C-364, An Act respecting the recovery of alimony and maintenance.-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.
Bill C-365, An Act to amend the Environmental Contaminants Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-366, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-367, An Act to establish a 200-mile coastal environmental control zone.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-368, An Act respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-369, An Act to promote the development of a strong high-technology industrial sector and to better protect workers from negative employment effects.-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-370, An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-371, An Act to amend the Indian Act (Indian government).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (partisan poll officers).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-373, An Act respecting the continental shelf.-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list).-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-377, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-379, An Act to promote solar energy use.-Mr. Gurbin.
Bill C-380, An Act respecting protection of animals (scientific purposes).-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Transfer of Offenders Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-382, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof.-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-383, An Act respecting the designation of a day to commemorate the holocaust.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-384, An Act respecting farm equipment emergency
repair parts.-Mr. Cardiff.
Bill C-385, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975 (duration of House of Commons).-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-387, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-388, An Act to establish a press council for Canada.-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton).
Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. McKnight.
Bill C-390, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (parental abduction of children).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-391, An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-392, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (enumeration and other electoral procedures).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Bank Act (sale advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier.
Bill C-395, An Act to promote the electrification of railways.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-396, An Act to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-397, An Act to amend the Parole Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act.- Mr. Joyal.
Bill C-399, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-400, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (twin screws and double hulls on all vessels carrying oil in Canadian waters).-Mr. Manly.
Bill C-401, An Act to promote the use of biomass energy.- Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-402, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Sarnia.-Mr. Cullen.
Bill C-403, An Act respecting the termination and evaluation of existing programs, regulations and agencies of the Government of Canada.-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Neil.
Bill C-405, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (benefits to adopting parent).-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-406, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual exploitation of children).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-407, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
Bill C-408, An Act respecting the international maritime boundary between Canada and the state of Alaska.-Mr. Fulton.
May 2, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-409, An Act to repeal the War Measures Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-410, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-411, An Act respecting the payment of wages during bankruptcy and receivership procedures.-Mr. Yurko.
Bill C-412, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (campaigning by non-residents).-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-413, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-414, An Act to provide for the establishment of a commission to review proposed legislation involving the rights and benefits of public servants.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-415, An Act respecting appointments to federal boards and agencies.-Mr. Thacker.
Bill C-416, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-417, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act (renewable energy).-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-418, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-419, An Act to amend the Immigration Act (entrepreneur-trainees).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-420, An Act respecting a permanent Speaker for the Canadian House of Commons.-Mr. Towers.
Bill C-421, An Act respecting the preservation and surrender of constituency records.-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-422, An Act respecting old age security benefits in the Northwest Territories.-Mr. Ittinuar.
Bill C-423, An Act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and to establish the electoral district of Kativik.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (denial of political rights).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-425, An Act respecting age of retirement.-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-426, An Act to provide a posthumous pardon for Louis Riel.-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-427, An Act to permit the recall of a member of Parliament by constituents.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Penitentiaries Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-430, An Act establishing a public inquiry into nuclear power.-Mr. Blaikie.
Bill C-431, An Act to create the territories of Nunavut and Mackenzie.-Mr. Ittinuar.
Bill C-432, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.-Mr. Stollery.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-433, An Act to promote an energy self-sufficient agricultural sector.-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-434, An Act to amend the British North America Act (representation in the House of Commons).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-435, An Act to amend the Indian Act.-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-436, An Act to amend the Indian Act (loss of status).-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands).
Bill C-437, An Act to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions dealing with equal pay for equal work and equal pay for work of equal value.-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-438, An Act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the member for the electoral district of Parliament Hill.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-439, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to counsel).-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-441, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (waiver of requirements).-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-442, An Act to amend certain statutes to encourage the employment of the physically handicapped.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-443, An Act to provide for the monitoring of the retail price of food and food products.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (electoral procedures).-Mr. Ellis.
Bill C-445, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-446, An Act to amend the Canadian Evidence Act (incriminating statements).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-447, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (publication and dissemination of pornographic material).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-448, An Act to amend the Official Secrets Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-449, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Stewart.
Bill C-450, An Act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by senators, members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-451, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of opinion polls).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-453, An Act to prohibit discriminatory and restrictive trade practices, resulting from foreign economic boycotts.- Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-454, An Act to create a national park on Southern Moresby Island.-Mr. Waddell.
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1980
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-455, An Act respecting immigration.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-456, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Elerbert.
Bill C-457, An Act to ensure representation of the Canadian labour movement on boards, councils and commissions appointed by the government of Canada.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-458, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-459, An Act to amend the Environmental Contaminants Act (notices of objection).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-460, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-462, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (extension of parental leave provisions).-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-463, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-464, An Act to provide for the establishment of the office of Parliament Hill curator.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-465, An Act to provide for the employment of handicapped persons in the federal Public Service and under federal jurisdiction.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-466, An Act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act (corporate objects).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-467, An Act to establish a sunset law for Crown corporations, government programs and agencies.-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-468, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (advertising).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-469, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (voluntary contributions).-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (security clearance provisions).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-471, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-472, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (strike or lockout).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-473, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for increased minimum hourly wage).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-474, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Roche.
Bill C-475, An Act concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada.-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-476, An Act to amend the National Transportation
Act.-Mr. Cooper.
Bill C-477, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (evidence not lawfully obtained).-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-478, An Act respecting a northern development plan.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill C-479, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (Restrictive Trades Practices Commission-law on mergers). Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-480, An Act to amend the Pest Control Products Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-481, An Act respecting family week.-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.- Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-483, An Act to amend the constitution of Canada (duration of a House of Commons).-Mr. Stewart.
Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to handicapped persons.-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-485, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits-labour disputes).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-486, An Act respecting the exportation of Canadian capital funds.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-487, An Act to amend the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-488, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski.-Mrs. Cote.
Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-490, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and the Railway Act.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-491, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (adoptive parents).-Miss Jewett.
Bill C-492, An Act to register lobbyists.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-493, An Act to protect individuals, companies and business from the consequences of foreign boycotts.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-494, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine corridors authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-495, An Act respecting the registration of lobbyists.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-496, An Act to amend the Criminal code (abortion).-Mr. Yurko.
Bill C-497, An Act to encourage modification of automobile engines and to develop fuels to provide integration and selfsufficiency for Canada.-Mr. Gurbin.
Bill C-498, An Act respecting the international maritime boundary between Canada and the state of Alaska.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-499, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-500, An Act to amend the Railways Act.-Mr. Cooper.
May 2, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-501, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan.- Mr. Coates.
Bill C-502, An Act to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act.-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-503, An Act to encourage appropriate disposal of agricultural waste.-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-504, An Act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-505, An Act to provide for investigation of complaints and claims of conflict of interest by members of Parliament.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-506, An Act to establish a commission to provide an awareness and understanding of the holocaust era.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-507, An Act to amend the Law Reform Commission Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-508, An Act respecting the protection of whales.- Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
Bill C-509, An Act to establish a film and television program import board.-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-510, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (mortgage interest and property tax credits).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-511, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-512, An Act to amend the Inland Waters Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-513, An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-514, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Shields.
Bill C-515, An Act to establish a sunset law for Canada.- Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-516, An Act respecting public hearings for federal agencies (sunlight provisions). - Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-517, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (registered retirement savings pain).-Mr. Siddon.
Bill C-518, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (mobile polling stations).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-519, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (secret ballot voting for strike votes).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-520, An Act respecting a national holiday.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-521, An Act respecting senior citizens.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-522, An Act to amend the Air Canada Act.-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-523, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits-eligibility).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-524, An Act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).-Mr. Waddell.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act (severance pay).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-526, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (partisan activities by ministers' staffs).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-527, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (rights of accused).-Mr. Howie.
Bill C-528, An Act respecting foreign ownership in Canada.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-529, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Hastings-Frontenac.-Mr. Vankoughnet.
Bill C-530, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-531, An Act to amend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 (assurance of gasoline for employment purposes).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-532, An Act respecting a National Energy Bank.- Mr. Andre.
Bill C-533, An Act to assist craftsmen and artisans in Canada.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-534, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (off-track betting).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-535, An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with a right of access to government information relating to themselves.-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-536, An Act respecting access by deaf persons to televised proceedings of the House of Commons.-Mr. Fretz.
Bill C-537, An Act respecting the use of social insurance numbers.-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-538, An Act respecting members who cross the floor of the House.-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-539, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (search warrants).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-540, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reduction in federal election period).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-541, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (provisions for independent legal services for members of the Canadian Armed Forces).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-542, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (repealing abortion section).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-543, An Act to establish a flexible retirement age.- Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-544, An Act to establish a Canada Heritage Day.- Miss Jewett.
Bill C-545, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (procedure).-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-546, An Act to provide for the establishment of the office of archeological curator for Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-547, An Act to amend the Winding-Up Act (publication of notices).-Mr. Gauthier.
670
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1980
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-548, An Act respecting noise in factories.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-549, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (automobiles).-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-550, An Act to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).-Mr. Dick.
Bill C-551, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (time limits for prosecution of offences).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-552, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton).
Bill C-553, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (reserve forces training leave).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-554, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.- Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-555, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Stevens.
Bill C-556, An Act to proclaim a day in commemoration of Sir John A. Macdonald.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-557, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (unjust dismissal).-Mr. Kristiansen.
Bill C-558, An Act to amend the Federal Court Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-559, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (by-elections preceding redistribution).-Mr. Beatty.
Bill C-560, An Act for the control of forms in the public service.-Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Bill C-561, An Act respecting use of social insurance numbers.-Mr. Cooper.
Bill C-562, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the act).-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-563, An Act to promote development of agricultural energy sources.-Mr. Gurbin.
Bill C-564, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Mr. Lambert.
Bill C-565, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grace.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-566, An Act to compensate Japanese Canadians for damages done to them by the federal government during the Second World War.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-567, An Act to establish a commission to study the electoral boundaries in the Northwest Territories.-Mr. Ittinuar.
Bill C-568, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-569, An Act to amend the Statistics Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-570, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (re-instatement of capital punishment for premeditated murder).-Mr. Taylor.
Bill C-571, An Act to provide for the establishment of Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-572, An Act to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-573, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-574, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (n.s.f. cheques).-Mr. Turner.
Bill C-575, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-576, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
Bill C-577, An Act respecting a Public Referendum on capital punishment.-Mr. Kushner.
Bill C-578, An Act to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.-Mr. McKinnon.
Bill C-579, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (requirements for official addition).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-580, An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act (renewable energy).-Mr. Schellenberger.
Bill C-581, An Act respecting incentives for workers.-Mr. Shields.
Bill C-582, An Act to provide for the establishment of a Canada sea coasts conservation authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-583, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (deposit).-Mr. Blenkarn.
Bill C-584, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Domm.
Bill C-585, An Act respecting political freedom for federal government employees.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-586, An Act respecting the use of social insurance numbers.-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-587, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act (payment of the allowance to veterans over 60 years).- Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-588, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).- Mr. Thacker.
Bill C-589, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (maternity benefits-disentitlement for pregnancy).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-590, An Act respecting the expenses related to leadership campaigns.-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill C-591, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (non-resident voting).-Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands).
Bill C-592, An Act establishing a ten-year moratorium on the further development of nuclear power.-Mr. Blaikie.

May 2, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-593, An Act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-594, An Act to amend the Railway Act (signs, notices and forms).-Mr. Gauthier.
Bill C-595, An Act respecting trafficking in exotic pets.- Mr. Watson.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all the questions stand?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is unusual there are no questions being answered. Perhaps there is an explanation. If there is, can the parliamentary secretary indicate to the House why that has happened?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that is a very good point. I would like to assure him that on Monday afternoon we will be giving more answers. It is just the way the answers have come back from the various departments. As hon. members know, we do not have any control over the actual answering; we rely on the process in the government departments.
I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that I checked the records. The Thirty-first Parliament opened on Monday, October 9, 1979, and the Speech from the Throne occupied eight sitting days. On Tuesday, October 23, 1979, only one order paper question was answered, two weeks after Parliament opened.
I would like to point out that we started to answer questions immediately upon suspension of the throne speech debate, which in this case was only six days. Therefore, I think the government has an excellent record so far. If my friend would look at Hansard, the total number of questions answered thus far exceeds the number of questions answered by the government of which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was a member.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all the questions stand?


Mr. Alexander:: Madam Speaker, I do not want to say it is the same old bunch, but I do not think I heard an answer to the question that was put. I now ask the parliamentary secretary if it is his intention to speed up the process whereby the answers that members of parliament require in order to satisfy their constituents can be done in an expeditious way. Never mind this flim-flamming and trying to slip and slide around
Transportation of Dangerous Goods the House. Answer the question in terms of what the hon. member intends to do in order to see to it that we do not have this embarrassing situation again whereby the parliamentary secretary stands up and says, "We will not be able to answer any questions today." That is unacceptable. Will he kindly answer the question that was put to him by the opposition House leader?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the expedition of these questions occupies me constantly. In my previous answer to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, I outlined that the government's record so far has been very admirable in answering questions. Certainly it is a much more admirable record than the one of the previous government in the Thirty-first Parliament.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer my question.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all the questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-18, to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: For the fourth time in two years, Madam Speaker, a government is calling upon Parliament to adopt transportation of dangerous goods legislation. The Hon. Otto Lang, the then minister of transport, introduced Bills C-53 and C-17 in May and November 1978, respectively. In turn, my immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) introduced Bill C-25 in November 1979. These three bills, namely, Bills C-53, C-17 and C-25, have fallen victims to the parliamentary timetable.
As I refer to two previous attempts at legislating this increasingly important issue, I cannot gloss over hon. Jean Marchand's contribution. In 1973, he is the one who, as minister of transport, took upon himself to consult the various provincial governments for the purpose of streamlining their respective legislation and regulations concerning the highway transportation of dangerous goods. He is also the one who set up an interdepartmental committee to scrutinize the federal government's legislation and regulations concerning the transportation of goods.

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
[English)
Mr. Speaker, while it is unfortunate that this legislation should have been delayed so long, I believe that each return to square one has resulted in an improved bill. Indeed, each new version has received amendments incorporating suggestions found in submissions and comments made by industry and by provincial governments on the previous attempt. 1 will identify in committee only, because this is highly technical, the changes in Bill C-18 as compared with the former Bill C-25. On the other hand, other suggestions from industry have not been adopted and I will give reasons for rejecting them, again in the committee.
Another benefit derived from postponement is that more time has been available for informal consultation, particularly with industry, with respect to the development of the regulations which will be promulgated under this legislation. Finally in these introductory remarks-I should have said remarks introductory to my introductory remarks-in the time since the first proposal concerning the transportation of dangerous goods was submitted to this House, a number of accidents involving dangerous goods in transit has focused public attention on the subject. 1 consequently believe that growing public awareness of such risks will result in increased popular support for this legislation.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be the "minister most likely to succeed" in getting this legislation on to the statute books, because 1 intend to make safety one of my main preoccupations during my tenure at Transport Canada.
This is not an easy bill, Mr. Speaker. My reading of the proceedings of the previous committee persuaded me there was a great deal of frustration among members of that committee. The very breadth of the subject matter is one of the causes of that frustration. The concept of umbrella legislation is another, because it involves to a great extent the acceptance of much of the status quo as opposed to the entire fresh look which one sometimes finds in legislation. Indeed, in desperation, one of the members of the committee suggested that Bill C-25, the bill which preceded the one in front of us now, was a "do nothing bill" and some members of the public have made the same allegation. Well, then, what is Bill C-18 all about?

Let us look first at the situation as it exists now in this field of transportation of dangerous goods. At the federal level, we find all sorts of legislation-the Railway Act, the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Nuclear Liability Act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, the national ports and harbours bill, the Explosives Act, the Fertilizers Act and so on-a whole series of more or less specialized legislation dealing with particular goods or with general areas.
At the provincial level, we also find a variety of legislation. The Ontario gasoline handling act, the Quebec explosives act, legislation on pressurized containers, prevention and many others, of course.
At the municipal level also, there has been a growing awareness of the risks to public safety caused by the transportation of dangerous goods in urban areas. That led, for example, to the drafting of municipal bylaws dealing with zoning and the transportation of those products. A number of selfregulating bodies-for example those responsible for the operation of bridges, tunnels, canals-are imposing conditions on the transportation of dangerous goods in or on such facilities.
So there is a considerable number of very varied legislation and regulations involving various penalties at the three levels of government.
Now, from a practical point of view, that leads to a lot of confusion and conflicts. I have here a paper from my department commenting on that. It reads, and I quote:
Manufacturers, distributors and transporters of dangerous goods and their containers must sometimes ignore regulations or in certain circumstances contravene them directly to ensure the movement of those commodities.
The paper goes on to say:
There is no harmony between policies and enforcement authority, and the strict implementation of existing regulations not only does not ensure security but in certain cases could worsen the damages that could be caused by an accident.
So the point I want to make here is that such an accumulation of unco-ordinated legislation generates untold difficulties for transporters and adversely affects the domestic and international trade of this country.

This confusion is an obvious one. 1 want to emphasize the confusing maze of regulation varying, according to the means of transport being used, the substance being shipped and the places to or from which the goods are being carried.
Now, Mr. Speaker, believing, unlike Hamlet, that it is nobler in the mind to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them, my predecessors in Transport Canada and I found ourselves faced with three possible options. This is really the gist of the matter.
The first option would have been to issue a code to be adopted and enforced by agencies at the federal or at the provincial level, using their own laws and regulations. The government would have issued such a code in the hope that authorities-federal, provincial and municipal-would incorporate these standards in their legislation or regulations.
As a second option, we could through some constitutional means have totally pre-empted the field, rendered all existing laws invalid and introduced a single piece of federal legislation. That would have been a federal takeover of the area using some general power that the federal government has or some emergency power, whatever it is. So that would have been the second way of going at it.
A third way is to adopt a sufficiently broad umbrella legislation which will provide a focus for co-ordinated activity. All my predecessors, and I today, have chosen this third avenue as being the best of three very difficult options.
May 2, 1980

Clearly, a code of standards would be unlikely to result in uniform regulations or regulations that could be enforced uniformly, since the powers conferred by the various statutes to the implementing agencies are unequal. So are the penalties. In other words, this code would have been implemented differently by different orders of government or under different bills, and in some ways while it might have resulted in some relative progress, it might also have added to the confusion that presently exists. So that was not too good as an option.
The second, the pre-emptive act, would have occasioned a major disruption in the administration, for one thing, because all these agencies would now have been superseded by legislation and, presumably, by an organization of some kind which would have taken over all these responsibilities. Not terribly good either.
Another reason is, of course, the constitutional issue. Each person arrested or sentenced under this pre-emptive law could have claimed that the bill was unconstitutional. He would have taken any number of appeals, going right up to the Supreme Court of Canada. Lawyers would have been very busy, but transportation would not have been helped very much.
The third option is the one which was selected by my predecessors and which is selected now. It is the typical Canadian compromise. It offers an umbrella type of law, an umbrella under which we find a number of basic principles and references to other laws and regulations, trying to incorporate most of it. It is not an easy matter to handle. That is why so much co-operation will be needed on the part of federal and provincial agencies in order to bring the maximum degree of uniformity to this area of regulation governing the transportation of dangerous goods.
I have read the bill a number of times and I, too, find it frustrating. This is why the committee will have to accept the frustration and move as well as it can to get the best common denominator.
I was speaking to a friend the other day. Jean Paul Sartre has just died. As we know, he was the grandfather of existentialism. I referred to this bill as an existentialist one. It will be in constant devenir. It will be in constant fabrication in some ways. One does not go to school for so long in his life without wanting others to know about it at one point, and this, presumably, is what I am doing now. I just want to emphasize that there is really, in my view, no other way of going at it.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to give a few basic elements on the contents of Bill C-18, for the benefit of those who are going to read my remarks. As I indicated, the objective is very simple. It is to establish a single legislation under which existing agencies, whether federal or provincial, can apply everywhere in Canada a set of regulations governing standards, procedures and labelling for the handling of dangerous goods by any means of transport.
This bill is an effort to consolidate existing regulations. The
legislation establishes three new types of offence. First, the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods handling, the offer to transport or the transport of dangerous goods which do not comply with the regulations. This is the first offence. The second offence relates to packaging and labelling of dangerous goods which do not comply with the regulations.
A third offence concerns non-compliance with orders given by the minister or his agent in emergency situations.
The bill also provides for the appointment of inspectors who will be authorized to visit the premises, to inspect the goods, the packaging, the means of transport, the facilities and the warehouses, to take any measure deemed necessary or to request that such measures be taken, including the seizure, the removal and the destruction of dangerous products or goods and the evacuation of persons. Of course, these inspectors will also be able to issue tickets and deliver them to the offenders. However, once again, in most cases these inspectors will be those of the agencies already in existence at the various government levels. There is no question of creating a completely new inspection system for the administration of this act. The cost of this would obviously be prohibitive.
The bill also provides that inspectors and others will be able to take corrective action whenever there is an accident involving dangerous goods; it also provides a strict obligation concerning the expenses incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada to prevent, remedy or repair any resulting damage. In other words, if an offender did not take preventive action before an accident occurs and Her Majesty is forced to repair the damages, Her Majesty will have a right of recourse against this offender. The bill also provides for inquiries to be made in all cases of accidents or incidents involving dangerous goods which have resulted in death or damage to property or the environment.
The minister or his agent can also issue orders to deem foreign standards equivalent or publish decrees in the areas where there are no general standards in Canada. In this way, we can simply adopt the measures which exist elsewhere in the world to use them internally.
The minister can also require information on the chemical composition of goods to determine first aid care to be given in an emergency. Everyone knows what this means. Some of these goods technically involve commercial secrets and if there is an accident, the minister will have the right to ask for the formula to determine the care to be given.

A few more pages, Mr. Speaker, a few words on the subject of regulations, a very popular subject in the last committee.
As I explained at the outset, the range and variety of the regulations attached to existing legislation is enormous. At the instigation of Senator Marchand, to whom I referred a moment ago, an interdepartmental committee was established to attempt to harmonize the regulations during the normal process of keeping them up to date. This exercise was frustrated by traditional practices in the industries affected and by the

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods diversity of the various enabling acts. I hope 1 have at least given a clear impression of the diversity, variety and amplitude of the regulations existing in this area. 1 am trying to create a psychological climate. Much as we want to improve that situation, we have to be very realistic and know that progress will take time. Listening to us, and seeing us work in the committee, as we will, the public must not be possessed by aspirations and expectations which are immensely beyond the capacity of that law.
I am just trying to build a good amount of realism into this so that members of the committee and the public at large will know that, while progress can be made if there is a great amount of co-ordination, there are also a number of principles and rules which have to be firmly established. It will take years before we get the optimum result in this area. That is the practice of the art of the possible; that is what politics is all about.
Just over two years ago, in anticipation of this new legislation the Department of Transport issued a rough draft of the amalgamated regulations. Industrial associations were invited to comment, and since then two more drafts have been produced and circulated. Because of the need to identify some 3,000 individual substances and to regulate the design and construction of packaging containers and transport vehicles in which these products may be carried, the regulations appear bulky. In fact, they are less than half the number of regulations that now apply to the transportation of dangerous goods. A good deal of streamlining has taken place.
1 have one more remark which 1 must make at this point. It is with reference to Mr. Justice Samuel Grange who, as hon. members are aware, is conducting an inquiry into the railway accident which occurred at Mississauga last November. A copy of Bill C-18 has been sent to commissioner Grange and 1 have requested that he provide us with comments on it to the extent that he sees fit to do so.
It is not the commissioner's mandate to examine Bill C-18, but I hope that as a result of his inquiry into the cause of the accident at Mississauga and the adequacy of existing railway regulations, he may have some suggestions to make about the bill, particularly concerning the regulation-making powers and the regulations themselves. Any comments that Mr. Justice Grange makes in his final report, which is expected in September, concerning regulatory reform will, of course, be available to the Standing Committee on Transport.
I want to urge hon. members not to consider delaying consideration of this bill until the report is tabled. Again this is a question of practicality. It is unfortunately to be expected that following the Grange report there will be other accidents and other inquiries, and if we decide to wait until we have all the inquiries made available to us as a committee, the certainty exists that we will never pass a bill. So again 1 think we must be very practical and, as far as possible, invite Mr. Justice Grange to the committee hearings and not wait until we get his full report in September before we move.
Finally, my predecessor once removed said that he was tackling this job with an open mind. 1 want to say that my mind is as open as his and that in working all together we might achieve a bill which will be the beginning of great things.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that one has the opportunity of making three speeches on the second reading of a bill in this chamber. I am in that rather unique position inasmuch as this is the third time that 1 have participated in the second reading debate on a bill entitled the transportation of dangerous goods act. As the minister has indicated, this bill has been before the House on three different occasions, and perhaps even on four.
Bill C-53 was introduced in May of 1978 and was never debated; it died on the order paper. It was repeated in the form of Bill C-17, which, I believe, was essentially the same. That was introduced in November, 1978, debated for about 20 or 30 minutes one Friday afternoon in February, and did not proceed beyond the half hour debate which took place in this House.
I believe it is important to lay that groundwork because, while this particular piece of legislation is important and while there was a considerable demand for it, it was not proceeded with immediately. As a matter of fact, I said at the time, and I have said this before, that during those days it was used more or less as a piece of legislation to fill out the activities of a Friday afternoon. The previous minister of transport on that occasion was not even in the House at the time second reading debate on that bill was introduced, so there was not a great deal of urgency attached to it at that time.
However, as the minister has indicated, the call for this kind of legislation has intensified rather dramatically, both from provincial and municipal levels of government as well as from the citizenry at large. As he has indicated as well, there have been a number of accidents. I can well appreciate what the minister said when he pointed out that trying to put together a piece of legislation which would co-ordinate all the rules and regulations and provide the necessary uniformity which could be understood and respected at all levels is a truly tangled web.
I can say to the House and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that our government recognized the importance of this legislation. We recognized that, given the complexity of the situation, it required intensive consultations and discussions with the provinces, with municipalities and indeed with the industry because, if this bid is to work, it must have the co-operation of all levels of government.
It must also have the respect and the understanding of the industry because, as I said, I believe, when I introduced the former Bill C-25 last November, it provides for inspectors; but we cannot have an inspector in every trailer or every train, so there has to be that kind of an understanding. As has been alluded to by the minister, the bill that we introduced was an improvement over the previous one. I agree with him when he used the phrase "constant fabrication". I am sure that this kind of legislation will evolve because in many cases we are
May 2, 1980

breaking new ground and it is undoubtedly true that we all want the most effective instrument possible to do the job.
We commenced the review of the previous Bill C-17 immediately after we assumed office in early June and recognized that the effectiveness of that bill would only come about with the co-operation of the provinces and the understanding of the industry. We recognized very quickly that if this legislation was to be successful, we could not take unilateral action but rather should move in a co-operative fashion.
Our bill was restructured rather extensively, but the objectives remained the same. We feel that essentially we strengthened the bill in some areas, and we have felt that some of the federal-provincial issues were clarified, we had hoped in the spirit of promoting greater understanding and respect for the legislation. Also we wanted to relieve somewhat the regulatory burden imposed upon the industry itself. 1 am sure that these discussions have been going on since this our bill was introduced and since it died on the order paper. I suggest that discussions should continue even though this bill might very well pass into law in this Parliament.
I should like to pay tribute to and commend the former minister of transport, now in the other place, who set up the mechanism for developing the necessary framework to proceed with this bill. I think it required a lot of patience. I am sorry that the bill did not become law when we introduced it on November 19. It was given second reading on November 27 and it was our intention to enshrine the previous Bill C-25 in our law books in early January, because at that time there was some sense of urgency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. At one o'clock the House was taking into consideration Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) had the floor. 1 understand the hon. member for Vegreville is prepared to recognize the distinction between Madam Speaker and Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I have not really made that conversion in total, but I will have no trouble referring to Your Honour as Mr. Speaker.
Also I should like to point out that I am very pleased the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) is in the House this
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
afternoon, because he too had a role to play in the facilitation of the passage of legislation dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods, inasmuch as it was he who introduced the previous Bill C-17 on Friday, February 16, 1979. I had the opportunity of responding to his intervention at that time. As I pointed out for the benefit of hon. members earlier, this is the third occasion on which I have intervened on second reading of this kind of bill to enact a transportation of dangerous goods act.
Prior to the adjournment I had indicated that our government introduced Bill C-25 on November 19, 1979. Second reading took place on November 27, 1979, and the bill had been passed on to committee. It was our intention that this bill be passed into law in early January. At that time there was a great sense of urgency about the passage of this legislation.
The opposition NDP-Liberal alliance were huffing and puffing for legislative action which had arisen largely as a result of the misfortune that occurred at Mississauga. We responded at that time with our bill. At the time the House of Commons became infiltrated with instant experts in all sorts of areas related to the transportation of dangerous goods. There were all sorts of charges and countercharges. Our government responded shortly thereafter by introducing our bill. The accident had occurred either on November 11 or November 12. We responded and the opposition stonewalled once we got into committee. There were all sorts of objections. They wanted to see regulations. They introduced all kinds of committee manoeuvres and tactics to see that the bill did not proceed.
The Minister of Transport has talked about realism, and I agree with the minister. He was not involved in the committee at that time, but I am sure that he has looked at the committee proceedings, and noticed that there was not a heck of a lot of realism among the NDP and Liberal members on that committee. There were such charges as, for instance, cutbacks in the CTC and cutbacks in safety inspectors.
Just to set the record straight, the initiative of any cutbacks within the CTC was taken by the formal Liberal administration. There were some 100 person-years to be reduced, it was up to the discretion of the CTC the president of the CTC to determine where those cutbacks should take place. It was up to him to determine if they would be at the administrative level, the secondary level or within the safety inspector services. That was a decision which was made by the CTC, and that charge cannot be accurately laid at our government's feet.
The stonewalling also consisted of a demand to see the regulations, which included some 1200 pages. I defy any member of this House to understand such a volume with any degree of expertise. We introduced the regulations. It was one of the first occasions in the history of parliamentary procedure in this country wherein the regulations were submitted to the committee for consideration at the same time as the bill was under consideration. That was the kind of co-operation and response which this government undertook to alleviate a very urgent and pressing situation. We gave the committee what

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods they wanted, we extended the committee sittings, but the forces of the NDP and Liberal holy alliance played politics and stonewalled. As a result of those manoeuvres, the legislation is not in effect today. Those two parties huffed and puffed about all sorts of things.


Walter David Baker: They blew the House down.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: But, lo and behold, on December 13 they had other things in mind. Dangerous goods legislation was no longer a priority. It no longer had a sense of urgency and political opportunism overrode safety considerations. So here we are once again, dealing with this piece of legislation which should have been enshrined in the law many, many months ago.


Mr. Evans:: Let's get on with it then.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says "Let's get on with it". That is precisely what we intend to do. We will not stonewall, and I give the Minister of Transport and the hon. member that commitment. This legislation is needed very badly.
1 am amazed at the cynicism and irresponsibility of some of the hon. members who served on that committee, not for the purpose of moving the bill and passing it into law, but for the purpose of playing politics and scoring political points. Like many other measures introduced by our government, this measure was deferred and delayed indefinitely. Some of our other good measures have been cancelled completely. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am not directing my remarks to the Minister of Transport; he was not involved at the time, nor did he participate.
It is not my intention to review this matter unduly because it is political history, but those members who are responsible 1 hope will reflect on their performance. I am sure that they will recognize that they probably acted in bad faith and not in a spirit consistent with parliamentary democracy.
I believe that this bill should be dealt with in the most non-partisan fashion possible. I refer to the incidents which I have mentioned only because they did occur. It is not because there was a basic objection to the bill or because there was disagreement with the principles of the bill, but because some members wanted to participate in political gamesmanship.
We on this side support the principal objectives of this bill. The bill has the same objectives as the previous bills, and I do not wish to go into detail. The minister has pointed out the number of areas in which changes have been made. I am sure that those changes have been made for the better and will serve to strengthen and provide a more effective piece of legislation. That is good. This Parliament should demand the most effective piece of legislation possible because our citizens demand it.
I submit, as the minister has indicated, that this legislation will probably evolve, because of the kind of flexibility incorporated into this bill which will allow changes and amendments to take place from time to time, into a solid piece of legislation. I am sure that, on the basis of experience, many good recommendations and suggestions will flow from the Grange report which the minister will table, and I am particularly pleased that the minister has indicated that he welcomes any suggestions submitted to him by the Grange commission.
1 agree with the minister that it is not necessary to delay the passage of this bill when there are the necessary provisions to incorporate further changes to the bill including any further recommendations. Naturally, based upon previous experience of the administration of this bill, undoubtedly there will be a demand for changes and modifications to the regulations and to certain specific provisions of this piece of legislation.
Reference has been made to the regulations. Surely the regulations are the core of this bill. What we have in terms of the legislative framework are not simply the principles but the real heart and core of the bill. The bill's provisions are very complex and technical in nature, but I would hope that during the committee proceedings we will have an opportunity to hear an overview of the latest version of the regulations in the clearest form possible.
1 understand that there have been continuing consultations with the provinces and industry with respect to the development of the best set of regulations that can be utilized and implemented. We would like to have an opportunity to look at these recommendations and to deal with them to ensure, in a parliamentary and official sense, that those who may have some reservations or concerns about any part of the bill will have the opportunity to express their views in committee.
We will also want to invite witnesses to participate in the further discussion of this legislation. It is not our intention to delay unduly passage of the bill as it seems to have been around for some time, but it would only make sense to allow the provinces, if necessary, industrial components and municipal government or associations that have a concern about the legislation to have the opportunity to state their views before the committee in an official capacity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the Minister of Transport for introducing the bill early in the session. 1 also want to pay tribute to the dangerous goods branch in the Department of Transport. We are very fortunate in this country to have a branch served by such competent, dedicated and committed people. 1 refer particularly to Mr. Duncan Ellison who worked for many years on this legislation. It has been a very demanding job and I think he tried to accommodate all the views put forward in a manner which is consistent with the theme of the legislation. Taking into consideration the complexity of the bill and its legal ramifications, I think the department and indeed the nation is well served by Mr. Ellison and his colleagues, and I want to compliment them at this time.
I should also like to assure the minister that we on this side of the House will co-operate to see that the bill proceeds. We will want to deal with the various clauses and hope we can receive testimony from witnesses at the committee hearings,


May 2, 1980

but it is not our intention to delay unduly its passage; rather, it is our intention to ensure we have the most effective and workable piece of legislation that is possible in order to satisfy a very important need.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my approval of this bill being brought before the House so early in the session. In principle, our party approves of the bill which is entitled the transportation of dangerous goods act. As the previous speaker indicated on behalf of his party, and as I might indicate on behalf of this party, we will not unduly delay its passage.
I do feel constrained, however, to correct the record because of the distorted recollections of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) regarding what went on last fall. As one who participated in that process and represented my party on the transportation committee when the bill came before it, I must point out that at that time we requested from the then minister of transport no more than the hon. member for Vegreville has indicated he wants from the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-that witnesses be called and questioned on various aspects of the legislation. It certainly was not our intention then, and it is not our intention now, to delay passage of the bill.
If anyone was acting in a politically opportunistic way last fall, it was the Progressive Conservative government. In response to the Mississauga event, they created the impression that the transportation of dangerous goods legislation was a panacea for the kind of anxiety that was created in the public mind as a result of that event. They pretended to bring forward legislation that they had intended to bring forward anyway as a very fast response to the Mississauga event. In fact, it had been on the order paper of the previous Liberal government and was something that the New Democratic Party had brought up before the Mississauga incident.
In my first question in this House I asked the then minister of the environment when he intended to bring forward legislation on the transportation of dangerous goods. That was exactly one month before the Mississauga event. The minister of the day replied "Yes, and soon." Mr. Speaker, that was my first lesson in how to put a question and how not to be put off with short answers. I learned how to get in my supplementar-ies.
The fact is that the government intended to bring the legislation forward in any case, and for the hon. member for Vegreville to say his party was responding to the Mississauga event was a distortion of history.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Stop distorting the facts.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Let us have a little accuracy when we talk about history.
Bill C-18 is basically the same bill as was Bill C-25 in the
last Parliament. There are some changes which it is important
Transportation of Dangerous Goods to note for the benefit of the record. For instance, in the new bill there are more ways to defend a charge that a person has contravened safety regulations. Under the new bill a person must establish only that he acted in good faith and took reasonable measures. Under the old bill he had also to prove that his contravention of regulation was not caused by his acts or omissions.
Another change is that when property seized by an inspector is essential to the livelihood of the person who wanted it returned that is no longer one of the reasons for it to be returned. This comes under subsection 15(4).
Under the old bill there was a duty to report an accident or incident that results in a discharge, emission or escape of dangerous goods. Under the new bill there is a duty to report a discharge, emission or escape of dangerous goods. This is an improvement because it broadens the scope with which the bill may be brought to bear on dangerous products.
Under the old bill the government could recover costs of emergency action from a person unless he established that he complied with the regulations. Under the new bill the government could recover costs unless he established on balance of probabilities that he and others for whom he is responsible complied with the regulations.
Under the old bill inspectors did not have the power to seize or remove dangerous goods if there was imminent danger to the environment. Under the new bill they have that power. The new bill does not, however, restore the power of the minister to hold an inquiry if a discharge, emission or escape of dangerous goods results in damage or danger to the environment. It is in this area that we may offer some amendments in committee to restore the environment as a reason for the minister to be able to hold an inquiry. In our view, damage to the environment should be regarded equally as serious as damage to life, health or property.
Two new powers of making regulations are given to the governor in council. First, that of prescribing circumstances in which the handling, offering for transport or transporting of dangerous goods is prohibited; and second, that of specifying dangerous goods that shall not be handled, offered or transported in any circumstances. This should give the power to make regulations affecting modal safety in addition to labelling. In the past, however, the government has not had the will to get tough with the railways and there is not much reason for hope in this area.
These are some of the provisions in the bill before the House which were not contained in Bill C-25 as introduced by the last Progressive Conservative government-and one hopes it was the last Progressive Conservative government.


Mr. Nystrom:: You mean "regressive" Conservative government.
678

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, regressive Conservative government. It is important to clear up some of the false expectations that have been created in expectation of passage of this legislation. There is a public anxiety about the transportation of dangerous products as a result of the Mississauga event and the subsequent derailment in MacGregor, Manitoba.
It is important to clear up false expectations about this legislation. Not that the legislation is bad in and of itself; indeed as we have already said, it is good legislation in that it harmonizes and integrates what was once a rather piecemeal approach to the regulation of dangerous goods. In so far as its intentions are concerned, this is a good bill.
I have said what the bill will accomplish, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it is important to put on the record what it will not accomplish. I have read far too many newspaper articles and editorials over the last several months, particularly since the MacGregor spill in Manitoba, which call for the speedy passage of this legislation, in a way that suggested that the passage of this legislation would somehow prevent rail disasters such as that at Mississauga or MacGregor. This is an illusion that must be dispelled.
As I said before, the legislation in itself is a good thing, but it does not pertain, for instance, to rail safety as such, according to Transport Canada officials who appeared before the House of Commons transport committee. This is why I think it is so important to bring this point up. It is the testimony of Transport Canada officials themselves which clears up the expectation that somehow this bill deals with rail safety.
On November 29, 1979, in response to questions posed by myself and by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), Transport Canada officials in their answers before the committee indicated that the transportation of dangerous goods legislation had nothing to do with rail safety as such- whether or not cars containing dangerous goods were to have roller bearings, or were to have the traditional friction bearings, or whether the tracks on which the dangerous goods were to be carried were safe and well maintained. This all had to do with regulations that came under the auspices of the Canadian Transport Commission. It had nothing to do with the transportation of dangerous goods bill. From testimony that I have before me, which I will not read into the record but ask members to look it up for themselves, it appears that the only thing the proposed dangerous goods act would change with regard to the Mississauga derailment is that hopefully when firemen arrived at the scene they would know what was in the cars. They would know what had actually spilled in the derailment. This is an improvement not to be taken lightly, but it has nothing to do with whether the derailment would have occurred in the first place. Transport Canada witnesses consistently, when asked about the proposed legislation's effect on the rail safety aspect of the transportation of dangerous goods, said that this question was under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission.
This brings me to a second area of concern, and that is the role of the Canadian Transport Commission. Under section 227 of the Railway Act the CTC may make regulations; and under section 296 the railways are required to carry dangerous goods in conformity with the CTC's regulations. Clearly a good deal of responsibility has rested and continues to rest with the Canadian Transport Commission in seeing to it that the public and the employees of the railroads, or for that matter employees of any other mode of transport, are protected.
Along with that responsibility, the Canadian Transport Commission should be given the resources to do the job. For example, the CTC will require more safety inspectors to ensure that its regulations are being adhered to. I admit the hon. member for Vegreville was right on one thing: government restraint was not a creation of the Progressive Conservative government, it was something that started long before when the Liberal party, prior to the election of May 22, began to prove conclusively that it is the second right wing party in Canada. This government restraint had already begun to affect the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not quote my own imagination here; I quote what the president of the Canadian Transport Commission said before the House of Commons transport committee, as follows:
The people we have I think do a pretty good job based on the numbers we have spread across the country, which 1 think is something like 78 (rail safety inspectors), which bothers me. It probably should be 178 instead of 78.
On November 13, 1979, Mr. John Magee, commissioner of the Canadian Transport Commission, testified before the same transport committee that the Treasury Board directed the CTC to reduce its staff even further. The recently published annual report of the Canadian Transport Commission showed an 11.4 per cent reduction in person-years assigned to the work of the commission.
It is a federal responsibility to make best use of existing authority. Therefore, the restraint program as it affects rail safety must be eliminated immediately. In this as in other areas, the public well-being should not be sacrificed to ideological obsessions about government spending. As well, the federal government, through the Minister of Transport, has the power already under section 100 of the Railway Act to apply to the CTC for an order that a railway company constructing a railway which has been aided by a subsidy from the Government of Canada make repairs, additions or improvements to its lines or equipment to promote safety and efficiency. If the company fails to comply with the order, the Crown can put a first lien or mortgage on the railway company for the amount of the subsidy.The power has always existed to promote greater rail safety; it is a power which simply has not been used.
A third area of concern has to do with the fact that railway companies in this country are chartered to render a service to the people of Canada in a safe, efficient manner whether dangerous goods are on board or not; but the railways are carrying more and more freight with fewer and fewer employees. The number of person-hours required to run Canadian railroads decreased 39.5 per cent between 1956 and
May 2, 1980

1975, while the amount of freight carried increased 86.8 per cent during the same period. Between 1976 and 1977, Canadian railways eliminated 60,000 jobs, 31,000 of which were eliminated from road and equipment maintenance, a policy which directly affected safety.
We respectfully suggest that the Canadian Transport Commission be instructed to review the guidelines so that the railways are required to have adequate numbers of maintenance employees for tracks, adequate numbers of employees to do the switching of freight cars and an adequate number of employees to work in all aspects of safety as it pertains to the railroads. In addition to keeping an adequate number of employees, the railways must be required to modernize their plant and equipment. Hotbox detectors should be installed along the heavily travelled main lines. Roller bearings should be installed on all cars carrying dangerous goods. Of course, too, even this will not deal with the problem adequately since the freight car carrying dangerous goods is not always the one that causes the derailment, a fact which points up again the need for general rail safety as a component of safety as it applies to dangerous goods.
The movement of certain dangerous goods may be required in the national interest. Therefore the nation should share the responsibility. Society at large, through its elected officials, should have the right and the responsibility to make decisions about whether particular dangerous goods should move and under what conditions, taking into account all costs and benefits to society, not just the conventional business costs and benefits to a private company.
An appropriate public policy toward dangerous goods shipments must balance the cost of the risk of moving a particular goods with the benefit of having the goods transported. We believe that when it comes to dangerous goods moving in large volumes by rail, the motivation of profit, as the supplier of transportation service, cannot possibly meet the test of balancing all costs and benefits to society.
We support social ownership of railways and the public ownership of Canadian Pacific, because we support the principle of integration of the entire transportation system; that railway transportation not only be perceived as but truly be an instrument of national policy directed toward national unity and economic development. The NDP insist that rail transport receive the massive long-term investment it needs to purchase equipment, improve roadbeds and electrify major heavy traffic sections of transport corridors. 1 say this in order that the headline from a Winnipeg newspaper I read recently which said that the eighties belong to the railways may become a reality, instead of a dream in this energy crisis situation in which we find ourselves.
Crown corporations like VIA Rail should become an instrument through which there can be a restoration of passenger service in this country, instead of a Crown corporation supervising the demise of same. Crown corporations have a role not only to ensure economic benefits to the public, but to ensure that economic development happens in a human and environmentally sound way, free as they are-although I know it
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
bothers my colleagues to the right-from strict profit considerations.
While we are convinced that an accountable, publicly spirited management of our railways would significantly improve railway safety, it would be naive to think that railway accidents involving dangerous goods can be totally eliminated. Accidents on the railways will occur from time to time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And trucks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Accidents will occur from time to time with trucks, airplanes and all manner of transport.
One of the things I regret about the focus which has been placed on the whole issue of the transportation of dangerous goods is that so much has been said about rail transport as a result of the Mississauga event. Sometimes it appears we have completely forgotten that dangerous goods are transported in planes, trucks, boats, and other modes of transportation that 1 leave to the imagination of hon. members. Therefore, it is not just rail safety which is at stake here. However, it is important to concentrate on it today because it is rail safety that is in the mind of the public as a result of the events at Mississauga and MacGregor. The best way to reduce the frequency and severity of these accidents is to reduce the amount of hazardous substances being transported. To do this, we must address the question of our dependence on non-renewable resources, which is my final concern.
We must consider the non-transportation solutions, such as reducing our dependence on non-renewable resources and changing our lifestyles accordingly. Too often we seek as a civilization, never mind just here in Canada, only technological solutions to technological problems, thus compounding our problems by refusing to see that certain technologies as such may be the root of a problem. For instance, our traditional sources of fibres and household goods, such as cotton, leather, and wood, have been replaced by synthetic goods and fibre which are extracted from and/or manufactured with the aid of non-renewable dangerous goods. This has created great conveniences in our way of life, and even greater profit for those who had the advantage of owning and marketing these new technologies and goods. But all this has happened at the expense of the environment, of those left out of work by the abandoning of labour-intensive technologies and of upcoming generations whose access to non-renewable resources for those purposes which only particular non-renewable resources can serve will be severely limited.
Consumption and disposal rather than repair and recycling has created a deficit for the future far greater in real terms than anything governments can do by way of deficit spending or borrowing, because non-renewable resources cannot be paid back. We would be far greater served as a country and as a Parliament if my colleagues on my right spent as much time whining about the deficit in non-renewable resources as they do about the deficit of the government when it comes to budget time.

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
In recent years more and more attention has come to be paid to the environment, both as it pertains to the non-human environment and as it pertains to human health. But we have a long way to go before we mature into a society that wants to know, and does know, the full effects of its way of living on human life and health, and on the rest of creation in and with which we must live. The science of toxicology, and especially of eco-toxicology, is in its embryonic stage. The fact that so very few people in the recent MacGregor spill in Manitoba seemed to know about the carcinogenic qualities of vinyl chloride, and the confusion which prevailed about the best way of dealing with it, cannot be reduced in the final analysis to the abilities or inabilities of those actually involved or to the legislation that was or was not in force at the time.
Society as a whole has been and continues to be guilty of gross negligence in the attention it pays to actual and potential harm being done to human life by dangerous products, whether it be asbestos, PCBs, methylmercury, arsenic or acid rain, or radiation, to mention a few. We must stand up and take note and consider for once that perhaps we should mend our ways and our doings, lest we find that we have sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind in the form of ecological disasters as yet unrealized but maybe only a short time away, given the often exponential evolution of ecological effects.
In the meantime, before we come to our senses about technology and a great many of the things we are up to these days, the federal government has its responsibilities, the Canadian Transport Commission has its responsibilities and the railways have their responsibilities to see to it that dangerous goods which continue to be transported are transported safely, through special measures designed to take into account the existence of these products. And that is how I see this particular bill. But we will only know how good a bill this is when we have had some time to see what the regulations are like, how they are enforced, whether the new bureaucracy that is created under the auspices of this bill has the money to enforce the new regulations, whether there is the political will to make this bill work. We will only know that as time passes.
However, it is a step in the right direction. In the meantime, as I said before, the government, the Canadian Transport Commission and the railways have a responsibility to ensure that the general context of safety, whether it pertains to rail, air, or marine transportation, is improved so that we do not have derailments and the like in the first place.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-18. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, we have had some very serious rail spills and some other very serious problems dealing with rail relocation. This has caused the citizens of Winnipeg some concern over the last couple of years.
The minister stated that he does not want delays with this bill. I can assure him we will act in a more responsible manner than we saw the NDP and the Liberals act in the last Parliament, especially in the transport committee. In the middle of the committee meetings, they wanted to put aside the transportation of dangerous goods bill and to call in Air
Canada. So much for their being so concerned and worried about the transportation of dangerous goods. They are not the least bit interested at all and their actions in the committee fully back up my statement. It was only a contest of filibustering and blocking.
I want to congratulate the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on the swift action he took with regard to the Mississauga tragedy. He initiated a judicial inquiry immediately. I want to touch on the terms of reference on the appointing of that judicial inquiry and I will do that in just a moment.
The minister stated that we are going to benefit from the delays in passing these bills. I do not agree with that at all. These delays have allowed more time for spills, something I am going to touch on this afternoon. Tell the people from Mississauga that we are going to delay and stall this type of legislation!
When the hon. member for Vegreville appointed the judicial inquiry to look into the Mississauga tragedy, which probably was one of the most severe rail tragedies in Canadian history resulting in an evacuation of a quarter of a million people, it was not to be the panacea to end all rail accidents for all time. It was something he had to do and he did it immediately.
The commission was asked to inquire into the contributing factors and causes of the derailment at Mississauga, Ontario on November 10, 1979 and the subsequent accident; the steps which could be reasonably taken to reduce the risk of recurrence of such an accident; the level and adequacy of existing federal law, regulations, rules and standards and of the practices and procedures governing railway safety with respect to this accident and the prevention of future similar accidents involving the handling of and the carriage of dangerous goods by rail.
If we had completed the former Bill C-25 in the committee hearings last year, it could have been law by January and we would have been months ahead in dealing with this serious problem, instead of asking for Air Canada to come before us in the middle of the committee meetings.
I have been concerned about rail safety for some time. I made inquiries of a previous minister of transport in 1977. A matter was brought to my attention regarding the possible explosion occurring at the Symington yards in Winnipeg during handling of propane tank cars. I received an assurance from the minister's department that in the handling of liquefied petroleum gas carloads they took the following precautions. Perhaps I might put part of that assurance on record:
The commodity code for liquefied petroleum gas produces a computer generated instruction with the advance journal which requires:
When humping-LPG carloads to be humped singly, and car following the LPG car into same class track to be humped singly.
When flat switching-LPG carloads to be shoved to rest, and car following the LPG car into same track to be shoved to rest.
I understand these self-imposed instructions, bulletined to all yardmasters, car retarder operators, yardmen and engine-
May 2, 1980

men, are reissued monthly and are being practiced. What we have to find out as we proceed with this bill is whether all these instructions and guidelines are being followed.
We have another serious problem in Winnipeg. I was hoping that the minister would have been able to make a statement yesterday or today about whether he has found it possible to obtain funds from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for rail relocation in Winnipeg. He said he would tell us within a week and Thursday was the end of the week. Today is Friday, yet we have had no statement from the minister.
This is causing us great concern in Winnipeg. Costs are multiplying for the city council in consequence of the delays; we do not know whether they are going to provide $100 million for CP Rail relocation, we do not know whether we are going to get a permit to put in the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, we do not know whether the city is to be reimbursed to the extent of $3 million in respect of the delay and the added cost for building the overpass. So we are actually more confused than ever as a result of this bill dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods because of this stalling and procrastination.
I cannot put the blame entirely on the shoulders of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) because I think the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has done a real job of leading hon. members opposite up the garden path into this business of providing funds for rail relocation. I do not think the government has any intention of providing or intended at any time to provide, $100 million as its share of rail relocation.
I want to touch on the serious concern in Winnipeg on the subject of rail relocation and the transportation of dangerous goods and, in doing so, to quote part of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of April 26. It stated:
Federal Liberal politicians, such as Lloyd Axworthy, played around with the relocation question for political advantage. Now that they are safely in power again, the Liberals cynically reject any help, even financial support for the overpass which has climbed in cost by several million dollars because of their manoeuvring.
That is an example of what we have been going through with the Liberals and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry for the last couple of years since he started interfering with the plans of the city of Winnipeg.
One cause of our concern is a recent CP tank car spill in Winnipeg when a tanker car containing highly flammable liquid methanol was punctured after being sideswiped by an eastbound train in CP Rail's Winnipeg yards on Higgins Avenue north of Lizzie Street. About 13,000 of the derailed car's 25,000 gallons of methanol leaked into the atmosphere during the night.
The people of Winnipeg are naturally fearful about such accidents. They wonder whether there is likely to be a continuance of such hazards. Is rail relocation to take place or not? The minister has a responsibility to the House and to the citizens of Manitoba to make a statement on this. I should like to have the hon. gentleman's attention, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the NDP member who is engaging him in conversation would
Transportation of Dangerous Goods speak to him later. As I was saying, I hope a statement will be forthcoming from the minister as to whether funding will be available, whether the federal government intends to drop all plans for rail relocation, or whether it intends to provide the $100 million required in this connection. I think we are entitled to an answer from the minister on this issue.


Walter David Baker: He could do it when he sums up.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Our House leader suggests it could be done during the summing up and I hope he will do it then.
I might add that the Winnipeg Free Press also has covered this subject of rail relocation along with the transportation of dangerous goods. It did so very accurately in a recent editorial under the headline "Mr. Axworthy's dead end". This editorial stated in part:
There was no need for a delegation consisting of the mayor, councillors, city officials and the minister of urban affairs to traipse down to Ottawa to get that simple answer (that no funds were available). Mr. Axworthy belongs to the same cabinet as Mr. Pepin. Former city councillor Bob Bockslael is his parliamentary secretary. They could have determined much more quickly that relocation of the yards is not on. They could have passed that message to city councillors instead of getting them cranked up to push for relocation. If they cannot do that, it is not clear what use it is having Winnipeggers in the government or close to it.
Councillors and the city at large should be wiser for the experience. Mr. Axworthy can promise but he cannot necessarily deliver.
1 trust the minister will deliver and straighten out the dilemma which the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has caused for us by his interference in this issue of rail relocation.
A member across the way interjects that the minister thinks very highly of me. What he thinks of me is of no concern to me and 1 shall lose no sleep about it. I will continue to expose him at every opportunity for what he is-nothing but a political opportunist. The city council and the people of Winnipeg are finally wise to him.
Talking about political opportunism, in the Liberal TV commercials during the last election they could not have picked a better individual to lie for them on the problem on interest rates, saying day after day that interest rates should not have gone up, they should not have gone up. If they should not have gone up, then they should have gone down.


Some hon. Members:: Ord ,r!


David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) naturally goes on at great length and in a very partisan way. We are all used to that. We have know him for many years. But he said a few moments ago that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Employment and Immigration, lied.


An hon. Member:: No, he did not.


David Michael Collenette: That is how it sounded and I should like to check the blues. If he did say that, if he accuses any member

May 2, 1980
682_____________________________________________
Transportation of Dangerous Goods of this House of lying, I would ask him to withdraw that statement forthwith.


A. Daniel McKenzie: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was that they could not have picked a better man to lie for them. I said it collectively. I did not single out one Liberal. He was speaking on behalf of the Liberal party.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Dionne,	Northumberland-
Miramichi): Order, please. It seems to me the debate is deteriorating below an acceptable level.


George Harris Hees: The understatement of the week!
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Dionne,	Northumberland-
Miramichi): It is a commonly accepted principle of the House that one member does not reflect upon the character of another, and I would ask that hon. members adhere to this convention.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 would like to give notice that I reserve the right on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), to raise a question of privilege should the blues show that the hon. member impugned his character, whether he was referring to him directly or by implication. I would like to reserve that right. Perhaps on Monday we will raise a question of privilege, if we so find in the record of the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that that is raised on Monday. 1 would welcome another opportunity to enter into that debate. The hon. member can be my guest.
As I said earlier, there is not going to be any delay on this side in dealing with this bill, but 1 want to ask the minister once again whether he will finally clear up the issue about providing funds for rail relocation in Winnipeg or in any other city, and will he make a statement as to whether he is going to issue a permit to the city of Winnipeg for the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass?
I have to insist that the minister give serious consideration to providing $3 million in funds to the city of Winnipeg to cover the additional cost of the delay which was brought about at the insistence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the previous Liberal minister of transport. I hope the minister will not lead us down the garden path any longer as has been done with the city of Winnipeg for the last 14 months, and I hope he will seriously consider clearing that up this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Regina has been waiting six years.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be standing to speak about Bill C-18, to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. I am particularly pleased to be speaking about this because people I know are seriously concerned about dangerous situations surrounding the port of Vancouver and particularly in my riding, the riding of Vancouver East.
My colleague has said that we approve this bill as far as it goes, and I might say to my colleagues to my right that this is the stand we took on Bill C-25 in the last House. We approve this bill, and we want it passed quickly.
The bill provides for safety standards for labelling and packaging of dangerous goods. This is necessary. The bill establishes policy for more inspectors. This is absolutely essential, and I would like to point out to the minister that in the B.C.-Yukon area I understand that there has been only one inspector to enforce federal safety regulations in the past. This bill also proposes legislation to enforce safety guidelines strictly, and this, of course, we need very much.
However, there are several essential points and questions 1 would like to raise, just as 1 raised these questions when we dealt with Bill C-25.


Walter David Baker: Raise them in committee.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the bill cover dangerous situations in all modes of transportation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I think not. For example, in our riding of Vancouver East there have been several situations where trucks carrying dangerous products have overturned on roads. There have been explosive and potentially very dangerous situations, requiring evacuation of our citizens.
The roads to the port are extremely dangerous. The planning-or lack of planning-of the federal government has never accommodated the development of a Vanterm on our waterfront. I have driven the roads on our waterfront, and workers in that area have pointed out to me that terminal trucks getting out of the waterfront area must pull up over railway tracks at intersections. Nothing is being done to develop proper access to our port areas. There are very dangerous situations.
We also have a convergence of both aeroplanes and ships coming into our port. There have been major incidents in the past which have been very serious. Ships carrying explosives have gone into our port threatening three, if not four, very important and densely populated ridings.
1 know my colleagues will be speaking at length about the problems regarding rail transportation. In my riding of Vancouver East there have been several situations where there have been runaway cars. In one case there were explosive materials, and voluntary evacuation of the area was required. 1 stress "voluntary", because there appears to be no one authority responsible for the over-all co-ordination of safety regulations in this area. This situation at the port of Vancouver, which involves four major ridings, is not peculiar just to the west coast. I am sure it also affects other similar waterfront areas across our country.
What authority will this bill provide municipalities and other levels of government to enforce safety regulations? For
May 2, 1980

example, I am told by the Vancouver fire department that there is no advance warning to them about dangerous commodities which are going to be transported by CP or CN. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker-I hope the minister is listening- that the fire department in Vancouver receives notification of dangerous goods having been shipped through this area one week after the dangerous goods have passed through? I really do not know what this bill will do to prevent major catastrophes.
We also know there is no co-ordination with fire boats. In fact there is only one fire boat in the port of Vancouver, and it belongs to the city of Vancouver. This boat is no longer available to other municipalities, and it should be the responsibility of the federal government under the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Transport Commission.
There are many problems facing areas like the port of Vancouver. Those problems must be raised at this time, and hopefully the matter will be clarified as much as possible during debate on this bill. The Mississauga evacuation and near disaster served as a warning to all of us. It can happen again. In fact there are statistical projections to show that it will happen again, and I wish the Progressive Conservative members from the areas surrounding the port of Vancouver were here today.
The quality and nature of hazardous goods shipped into and through Vancouver are considerable and diverse. It is not unusual to see trains transporting combinations of liquid propane, chlorine, and fertilizer, tripling the danger of explosion. We know that a typical liquid propane tanker has a capacity of about 34,000 gallons. The fire department tells us that the danger of a BLEVE, as it is called in technical terms-boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion-which is associated with such tankers, now being transported along the Vancouver waterfront, is considerable. The danger zone for a BLEVE is considered to be 3,000 feet, or about ten city blocks. Approximately 20,000 people in the city of Vancouver, not to mention the surrounding district, would then be in danger of a major explosion on our railway tracks or in our port. It is no wonder we are concerned.
I would also like to mention our concern that there is no co-ordination, and that this bill apparently provides no co-ordination among the different jurisdictions which are concerned with safety and also in relation to the different modes of transport.


Walter David Baker: Who told you that?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The CTC must take leadership in the port of Vancouver. I will tell the hon. member who told us this. Quite a bit of research has been done. The head of the port of Vancouver, the harbours master, was the one who told me this, and it was supported by workers in several unions on the waterfront and by representatives of city council and other municipalities who have carried out major studies in this regard.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
There is no co-ordination and no contingency plan in this area to deal with emergencies. In fact the truth is that no one is in charge. There is a morass of conflicting jurisdictions involving four levels of government, a variety of government agencies and transportation companies. We feel that the CTC must take the lead, although other jurisdictions, and particularly municipalities, are essential in developing an over-all safety plan.
From consultation with the sources which 1 mentioned in the Vancouver area-I hope the minister is aware of this-it appears that the only solution is to establish a transportation safety authority with leadership from the federal government but which will involve all jurisdictions and all methods of transportation. Such an authority would develop contingency plans to deal with the emergency, would pool the resources and divide the responsibilities of governments. It would employ inspectors, the number of whom will be increased under this bill, to enforce safety regulations. Workers should be trained, particularly workers on the waterfront. Truck routes for the transportation of hazardous materials must be studied and designated by such an authority. There must be liaison among everyone concerned with the transportation of dangerous goods.
I hope that all this will be considered by the minister and that this bill will be expanded in its application. I hope that meetings will be initiated by the federal government to develop a transportation authority, particularly in the greater Vancouver region.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and take part in this debate. I think it is important for those of us from the rural parts of the country to have a say in what goes on in the movement of dangerous goods around the country. In my riding of Portgage-Marquette in central Manitoba there are over 200 miles of main CN and CP rail line that run through the constituency, and it is on the main lines that goods are transported. I think it is important that we not only think about the movement of dangerous goods relative to the problems that are caused in moving them through large urban centres but that we also think about the transportation of dangerous goods as it relates to movement throughout the country.
I am glad to see that this bill includes provisions to look after many aspects of the movement of dangerous goods, from the way they are packaged and handled before they are transported to the type of containers in which they are moved. I should like to make reference to this later, relative to the train wreck we had at MacGregor last March and the problem we had with vinyl chloride.
It is very important that these regulations not be so all encompassing and involved that they lack common sense, because the most important thing we must have in terms of enforcing them, contrary to what some of my friends to my left would like to think-they would like to regulate everything into the ground-is that they be practical. You must have a

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
certain degree of common sense associated with them or they will not work. If you do not have good will, the best intentions in the world will not work. 1 think it is important, with as complex a bill as this is, that the regulations be workable.
I agree with what the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, that it was a breakthrough when the regulations were being examined by the committee. 1 was part of that committee and I think it was a very important step. The regulations are so large and there are so many of them that it is important that we have a chance to look at them. I hope the minister will proceed in the same way as the former minister in our government did with regard to letting us look at the regulations when they get to committee.
I hope the minister is serious when he says that he will make the movement of dangerous goods a priority. 1 hope that he does, and I hope that this bill will contribute to making the movement of dangerous goods a little safer throughout the country.
I would like to refer to something that was said in the last Parliament by the member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), when he said that the minister will have to use the leverage, influence, and power of the government to bring the railroads into line to co-operate in changing the formulas and equations by which the whole relocation process is being administered in this country. It is fine to relocate rail lines around major centres but, as we found out at MacGregor, people live throughout the country and there are problems no matter where you move the rails. Simply moving the rails will not necessarily deal with all the problems.
The main thing we have to think about is that when we do move goods we should take every precaution we can, not only in the movement but in the way that they are packaged to ensure that they reach their destination in good condition. My constituency is a large rural riding and the problems are just as important to us. The fact that some people live in smaller centres does not mean that they would be less concerned about the safety of their families and their communities than people in the larger urban centres, so I am a little upset when I hear people talking about the movement of dangerous goods in cities only. People live throughout this country, and everyone is important.
We had an experience at MacGregor which, although it did not turn out to be as serious as the one at Mississauga, potentially had as many problems associated with it. It involved the derailment of something like 12 tanker cars of vinyl chloride back on March 10. I had a chance to visit the site of the wreck twice and to see some of the clean up procedures that were undertaken. The problem there was how to handle communications relating to the chemical that was spilled, the amount that was spilled, and the associated hazard after the derailment. The wreck took place on a Sunday at approximately 1.30 a.m. A week later there was still a lot of concern in the town of MacGregor as to what had actually spilled, how much had spilled, and the kinds of problems that vinyl chloride would cause in that area. I found this to be extremely disturbing. I think we learned a lot of things from
that, and I think that if it happened again we could do things better.
I was interested to hear my friend from Manitoba, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), say that it was the responsibility of everybody to ensure we have the proper communication. I would like to suggest that if you look at the behaviour of his party in the provincial legislature in Manitoba you will find that it was anything but responsible in terms of ensuring that the public was kept properly and fully informed of the hazards.


An hon. Member:: Slanderous!


Charles James Mayer: Instead of ensuring that people's worries are put to rest, the party contributed to doing the opposite. I think it is incumbent on many of us as politicians to see that we contribute to people's ease of mind rather than doing the opposite. 1 might add that the lone member who belongs to the party opposite in the Manitoba legislature did a very good job for the only one in the House to add to that confusion. So I think there is a lesson in all of that to be learned, that we must act responsibly.


An hon. Member:: Holier than thou!


Charles James Mayer: I would like to see people check the records on that because I am sure the records will bear me out.
One of the things that I learned from the wreck is that there should be better labelling on some of the cars that move dangerous chemicals. When I had the chance to visit the site, I found a small tag, approximately six inches square, which said that dangerous chemicals were being carried. 1 would see nothing wrong with having something a lot more visible so that, if computers break down, communications are set up to get information to the people involved in cleaning up the wreck. They would not have to rely on this; they could simply visit the site and take a look at the labelling on the containers. They would know from that the kind of chemical that is in the cars that are having the problem.
I am glad to see the minister in the House as I would like to refer to a letter I wrote him on March 20 regarding the inquiry into the wreck at MacGregor. In that letter I suggested that it would be appropriate for the Grange commission set up by the former minister to take a look at the wreck at MacGregor and that I thought we could learn something of the way the communications were handled and from the fact that the people in the town of MacGregor were kept in the dark for too long. I received a reply from the minister just this week in which he pointed out that the CTC was holding hearings at present. I am well aware of that, and in fact I attended the first day of hearings they had in Winnipeg two weeks ago.
I know some of the commissioners personally, I know they will do a good job. It will be a long inquiry. I am sure they will come up with some answers as to what caused the wreck, but I would like to suggest that the Grange inquiry would also be an appropriate vehicle to look at this. Simply because the wreck happened in a place where there were rural residents does not make it any less important than it would be in the town of
May 2, 1980

Mississauga. 1 would hate to see the minister using that as an excuse for not suggesting to Justice Grange that he go to . MacGregor and hold some hearings there. If the vinyl chloride spill had occurred in an area with a larger population, probably more pressure would have been put on and it might have been easier for the minister to see fit to recommend to the justice that he hold some inquiries into the MacGregor spill.
Also I should like to suggest to the minister that the terms of reference are more than broad enough to cover the situation at MacGregor. I should like to refer to the last point in the terms of reference, which reads as follows:
Within the existing jurisdictional and constitutional framework how best co-ordination and co-operation between the various agencies and jurisdictions involved can be assured in the investigative and corrective action required immediately following a rail accident involving dangerous goods. This is not intended to include matters such as the evacuation of residents at large and other related matters falling clearly within provincial jurisdiction.
I think it would be more than appropriate for the justice to go to MacGregor to hold some type of hearing there in order to learn from the people of MacGregor what some of their concerns were, and, if they had an opportunity to go through such an experience again, how they could be better served by the type of actions that were taken.
One of the problems I have with the CTC, despite the fact that I had every confidence in the commissioners, is the fact that the CTC itself is involved in accidents of that sort. When 1 was at the site I had a chance to talk to a CTC representative, a very capable gentleman. He informed me that he had been on the site since the time the accident happened. I think we have a certain element here of the CTC investigating itself. By having Justice Grange look into this kind of an accident, 1 think he would remove completely the possibility of someone saying that the CTC will investigate itself. I urge the minister to take a serious look at carrying out the suggestion I have just made.
I do not want to prolong the debate any longer than necessary because 1 think it is a very important piece of legislation. The sooner we can get to committee with it the better. I think we should look at the necessity of moving dangerous goods in this country. Today I heard a figure which indicated that something like 3,000 goods are classed as dangerous goods that we move in this country. With the kind of lifestyle we have, obviously we will produce things that are hazardous in one form or another either to ourselves or to the environment. But in the case of vinyl chloride and the experience at MacGregor, 1 think the vinyl chloride as a monomer is a potentially hazardous chemical. It has very strong explosive characteristics. The major concern at the MacGregor wreck was at the time of the accident when there could have been a large explosion. But it is also true that in large doses it is a carcinogenic chemical and it has a record of causing certain types of cancer if people are exposed to it over a prolonged period of time, or if the exposure is very large over a short period of time.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
In this case the chemical is made in Fort Saskatchewan near Edmonton. It is moved to Sarnia where it is polymerized. When it is polymerized, it is made into things which are commonly used. It then becomes a polymer of vinyl chloride which is used in garden hoses and various plastics associated with the wire industry. It becomes a very harmless chemical, and I suspect that all of us come into contact with that chemical on a daily basis.
When we talk about moving certain chemicals, I think it may be well worth our while to see if we could organize ourselves in this country so that we could make use of those chemicals before they are moved, so that when we move the end product from those chemicals there is in fact no danger to the public. I think an industrial strategy or some kind of awareness of that before the fact would go a long way toward eliminating the necessity to move these kinds of goods. In this case it is too late. The facilities for polymerizing the monomer vinyl chloride are located at Sarnia. It must be moved there in order to be manufactured into things that we use every day.


Mr. Cullen:: Good for Sarnia.


Charles James Mayer: In closing I should like to point out that I look forward to having a chance to work on this bill at committee stage. 1 compliment the minister on bringing it forward as quickly as he could. I think the former minister did an excellent job of getting the thing together, so that it was probably easier for the minister to bring it forward as quickly as he did. 1 suggest the minister has a tough act to follow the former minister. If, in the minister's four-year term of office, he can come close to doing the kind of things which his predecessor had on track in the nine months that he was in office, then the minister will be a very successful Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on what I thought would be a non-partisan debate on Bill C-18, which was formerly Bill C-25. I congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the former minister for seeing the importance of a bill of this nature. Non-partisan it has not been in this House, and I should like to respond to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) who accused the New Democratic Party of trying to hold up this legislation so that indeed it was not in effect by January. The hon. member is aware that in this House of Commons we were operating in a minority government situation. If his party had recognized that in the last House and had tried to co-operate with members, we may well have had that bill passed, and we may well still have had a Conservative government.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Well put.


Edward Allan Miller: Also the hon. member should be aware that it was not only the members of the House of Commons who brought about the defeat of the Conservative government, but the electorate on February 18 justified the stand of the opposition parties.

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
The bill before us has a particular interest in my riding of Nanaimo-Alberni. In that riding and surrounding areas there are three major pulp mills which involve the use of chlorine and sulphur dioxide gases, as well as the use of caustic soda. There is a chemical plant in that area which results in chemicals going through our community, many of which we are not aware of as citizens. The community was concerned. It was concerned before the occurrence of Mississauga. Certainly that was the focal point of community involvement and discussion within those communities as to what types of emergency procedures we had in our riding in order to meet the demands of an emergency such as the one at Mississauga.
At the meeting held in conjunction with the Canadian Transport Commission, there were represented municipal councillors, mayors, regional board directors, union representatives from two major pulp mill unions in British Columbia, and we had industry in the form of a representative of the largest forest products company in British Columbia, MacMillan Bloedel. Also we had firemen, fire chiefs, and emergency planning co-ordinators. Not only did we have the support and co-operation of the Canadian Transport Commission in our inquiry, but also we had public support.
In introducing the bill before us today, the minister said that there is a danger we may have too high expectations of it and of what it may do for commodities transported on rail, on sea and in the air, by cars, trucks and other means of transportation. But 1 should like to tell the minister that the public has high expectations of this bill. The public in my riding has high expectations. People are expecting that this bill will address itself to rail transportation in particular.
Rail transportation on Vancouver Island does not have a good record. There was an attempt by the CPR to curtail passenger service. There was an attempt by the CPR to downgrade or let their railway tracks be downgraded so that indeed they could not have passenger service. Usage had to be curtailed until the CTC demanded that they replace the trestles. The record of that railway on Vancouver Island is very poor. Four derailments within a matter of two months brought to a head the concerns of that community.
I would like to talk about Port Alberni, a major lumber producing town that has a major pulp mill. I would like to discuss the geographical location of that town to indicate the real concerns which the people of Port Alberni feel about railway transportation, the health of that transportation system in their area, and about this bill. Port Alberni is completely surrounded, with the exception of a small valley or inlet on the west coast. There are periods of climatic weather inversions, which means that the air stagnates within the valley. Because it is located on the west coast there is fog, and there is also pollution from the pulp mill, all of which hangs in the valley.
Our concern is that if Port Alberni is put on that railway
transportation system, a derailment coming into the valley
resulting in the giving off of chlorine or sulphur dioxide gas could mean that the fumes will remain in the valley and cause irreparable damage to human health and human life. It is a distinct possibility if one looks at the railway transportation system coming into that valley and the regulations which govern the transportation of dangerous goods on that rail link.
In introducing the bill today, the minister also indicated that we could not expect a great many more inspectors because the bureaucracy required for enough inspectors to ensure safety in our communities would be too costly. We all share a concern about how many people the minister intends to hire to fulfil the jobs which this bill will create. However, there is a need to look at how many inspectors we have today on the railway transportation system. I am not very confident when I look at the minister's estimates for fiscal year 1980-81 in comparison to fiscal year 1979-80, which is the estimates that were recently tabled in the House.
Under the CTC allocation for personnel, we see a reduction of 99 person-years from 1979-80 to 1980-81. Under regulation and control there are 47 fewer person-years and under railway safety, which has already been mentioned today, there is a reduction of five person-years, from 105 to 100 person-years. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), said earlier that the CTC chairman had indicated that there are only 78 railway inspectors in Canada. In British Columbia, as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), has indicated, there is only one inspector for all accidents in that province. There is also the question as to whether we even have that one inspector or whether they are about to hire an inspector.
The same kind of situation can be seen with regard to equipment operators. It is important that we have these inspectors. If one looks at the description of what railway safety means and what it involves, one gets a good idea. I think it is important that we understand why these inspectors are needed, so I would like to quote their duties as they are outlined under the railway safety regulations. It reads:
Development of regulations, standards and procedures respecting rolling stock, apparatus, appliances, signals, methods, devices, structures and works used by railways; monitoring inspection and enforcement to ensure effective application of legislation, regulations, standards and procedures in respect of operations, maintenance and construction of railway equipment and facilities-
I will not quote the whole section, but that is the essence of this bill. If the people are not there to enforce and implement what we hope to develop in regulations through this bill, then it has no point. When the minister says that we cannot expect a significant increase, or even an increase, in the number of inspectors, then I think he should re-assess the inspector situation under the CTC. Inspectors are in short supply, and with this umbrella bill there will not be the protection which the people of Canada expect.
We have high expectations for this bill, expectations that one can gain from the provincial and municipal governments, and other agencies, the co-operation which the minister is asking for today. The co-operation within my riding, and I am sure that it is shared throughout Canada, between municipal governments, fire departments, emergency agencies and others
May 2, 1980

in that community has been amply demonstrated. The Minister of Transport is responsible for involving the official agencies-provincial governments, municipal governments and industries-which he has mentioned.
There is a public concern and a public willingness to contribute to the discussion of this matter and to have an opportunity to provide input into the regulations under discussion while this bill is in committee, and also into the changes to those regulations in future years. I am pleased to be able to support the principles of this bill. I hope to participate in committee and give suggestions which I will gather from my riding and which, I hope, will form part of the regulations.
There are a number of things about which we are concerned. We feel the emergency planning activities which go with dangerous cargo and railway safety are not given adequate recognition in this bill. While in committee we will be making further representations about railway safety. As many hon. members know, there are no rail safety standards in Canada. In the case of the E & N Railway on Vancouver Island, safety standards as they apply to the protection of the public on the railway system, are applied in cases where the railway inspector feels that the system is not safe at the speeds at which the trains are travelling and the loads which they are carrying, and they take the form of reducing the speed of the train.
If we do not demand upgrading of our track beds in Canada the ultimate effect of that policy will be that trains will grind to a halt. In fact Canadian trains have already ground to a halt in certain incidents because of that policy. The commitment of our party is to see that this bill does not grind to a halt, but that it is implemented with the necessary changes to protect the Canadian public.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on this bill, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. 1 have worked for railways in the area of transportation for 30 years, and I have a few comments which I would like to make. I want to commend the minister for bringing forward this bill, but within it I can see some very serious shortcomings.
There was one drastic accident in Mississauga, and the trade unions and other groups have been investigating that accident. To my knowledge they are still investigating the accident. It disturbs me that those groups who are so concerned about the employees for whom they are working and the various avenues of the whole accident, have not had an opportunity to put forward their ideas with regard to what happened during that accident.
Another area which I would like to discuss deals with the fact that many of our tank cars which haul dangerous goods are not accepted at the interchanges of some of the railways which lead to the United States. If they are not accepted by some of the major railways in the United States, then we
Safe Containers
should take a very serious look at whether, in fact, they are acceptable by our standards.
I am interested in the handling of dangerous material, Mr. Speaker, because I come from a very mountainous area where there are steep grades and curves on the track which handles a lot of dangerous material. I have seen as many as 100 cars having pushers put into the middle of the train-indeed I have seen cases where they could not find a spot to put the pushers in because the material carried was so dangerous. The bill should provide some protection in cases such as that. I think there should be a limit of about 60 cars on trains that handle dangerous material.
Train crews have been cut to two men, one in the caboose and one on the engine with the engineer. The trains come down steep grades, 100 cars or more, carrying dangerous material, and we are here discussing a bill for the protection of people handling dangerous material!
Another matter of concern is that a train could leave Montreal and travel right across Canada, if it had no occasion to pick up an extra car along the way, without a number one brake test. It could go right across Canada without a test, Mr. Speaker. In many places in the United States trains are only permitted to travel a certain number of miles before they must have that number one brake test. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to look into this and to see that a mileage limit is imposed on trains handling dangerous material before they must have the number one brake test. If we did that we could make sure that the trains are in perfect condition when they start out to travel across the country.
It has been suggested that the board of transport should have this responsibility. I want to commend the board for its work, but in my experience working on the railway, I came to resent the fact that the board of transport employees would come to inspect facilities and then, if there was a major accident, the same employees would come out to inspect their own work and make a report. I say that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Some protection must be included in the bill that provides for the safety of not only the workers but of the communities along the route.
In the community of Revelstoke there are level crossings with means of stopping people from crossing the tracks to get to the other side of town. If there were a major accident it would be almost impossible for a fire engine to get to the other side of the train and protect that area of town.
These are all things that must be examined very seriously with the municipalities involved, Mr. Speaker, as well as with other groups. I look forward very much to the meetings of this committee where I hope to have some input, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 2, 1980
Business of the House


SAFE CONTAINERS CONVENTION ACT
Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-21, to implement the International Convention for Safe Containers, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their indulgence this afternoon in getting Bills C-18 and C-21 through second reading stage and on to committee. I think that augurs well when we are just two or three weeks into this session of Parliament. 1 would hope that we may now move into private members' hour, Mr. Speaker, and that I may make a few comments.
There have been consultations with hon. members on all sides. It has been agreed to proceed with Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), since the sponsors of Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are unable to be present this afternoon.
I take it we have agreement to proceed in this manner and preserve the order of members whose motions have been passed over today. I hope that is agreeable to all of the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) requests that the House call it four o'clock for private members' hour. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed with motion No. 5 and that Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 keep their place on the order paper.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I must note that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was unable to be with us this afternoon. It is a rare Friday that he is not in this chamber. I am sure all hon. members will join with me in tendering best wishes on the fiftieth anniversary of his graduation from Brandon University, in Manitoba. He is the chancellor of that university and is present there this afternoon to preside over the convocation ceremonies.
With him is another distinguished former member of this House who, at one time, respresented the constituency of Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. They graduated from the same class in 1930. I am sure it is the sentiment on all sides of the House that we extend our best wishes to both gentlemen this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the parliamentary secretary in expressing, on behalf of this party, the best wishes that he has extended to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to Mr. Tommy Douglas. I did not realize that Brandon University bred such revolutionaries as those two distinguished gentlemen.
The parliamentary secretary noted we are marking their fiftieth graduation anniversary. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre carries on in his usual way, I suspect that we shall be marking his one hundredth anniversary in this House! May I express the wish that all of us will be here on that occasion to pay tribute to him.
We are pleased with the arrangement that has been made and that motions Nos. 1 to 4 will have their place reserved on the order paper. I think it is quite appropriate that we now move on to private members' hour.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I want to join in extending best wishes to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of his graduation from that revolutionary college, the Brandon University. It is not a very conservative institution, 1 gather.
Since I arrived in this House in 1968 at the same time as the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has only missed attending one day per year. That is the day of convocation at the Brandon University. It is a very rare day indeed when the desk right next to me is empty.
On behalf of my colleagues I should like to extend our best wishes to the hon. member and to Mr. Tommy Douglas, the former member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, as well as to some 25 of their colleagues on this, the fiftieth anniversary of their graduation from the Brandon University.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On behalf of Madam Speaker, the Chair wishes to associate itself with the compliments paid to both hon. gentlemen.
On a more personal note 1 might mention that I wondered whether something was peculiar this afternoon. I now realize that it is not merely that I am a newcomer in the chair but that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not in the House. 1 had been wondering what was bothering my perception.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) has proposed, and I understand there is unanimous consent, that we proceed immediately to private members' hour. These items, namely 1, 2, 3, and 4, shall not lose their place in the proceedings. We shall proceed to notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member and I do not intend to take any
May 2, 1980

time of the House, but I believe the parliamentary secretary is in a position to announce the business for the balance of Monday, before we start private members' hour.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, before 1 do that I should just mention, since I forgot earlier, that the reason we joined together in giving our best wishes to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that he drew the first motion for business, and that is what we are standing today. This will explain the reason for our statements earlier.
On the question of business for Monday, we will proceed with the Bank Act. We expect that this will probably not be until the evening sitting since the House will not assemble for question period until 4.30 p.m.
As members know, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Japan will be addressing the chamber, members of the Senate and the Supreme Court, in this chamber at 2.15. Madam Speaker has asked that all members be in their places by 1.45 p.m. so that the Prime Minister of Japan can proceed at that time.
Before I sit down I should mention also that it has been agreed among parties that next Thursday will be the first allotted day for the official opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I understand that private members' hour will end at eight minutes to five.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing the Hall commission report, including major recommendations, to increase use of ports at Churchill and Prince Rupert, guarantee the Crow rate to the farmer, extend the Crow rate to the processed equivalent of raw materials, pay the railways directly for their losses, make the railways fix up their tracks and buy hopper cars, and give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement.
He said: Before getting into the subject of my resolution I wish to apologize to my good friends, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) in that 1 will not be able to stay to hear their remarks. The parliamentary secretary and I will be making a desperate dash to the airport at about 4.30 p.m. However, 1 am hopeful, and I hope it is not misplaced, that the hon. gentlemen I have just mentioned will be most anxious to support and accept my resolution.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Benjamin grain policy.
Transportation of Grain


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Some of the Hall commission recommendations have been implemented and worked at by the previous Liberal government and the Conservative government of last year, but there are some other recommendations that still remain to be implemented. As the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said after the Hall commission report was brought down, it was a Magna Carta for the west. We agree with that. I think people on all sides of this House and from the west, even though they may disagree with some of the minor details in the report, accept it as a package, as a whole. I think that has been agreed upon by people in all walks of life and political faiths.
In the recommendations of Mr. Justice Hall, he said that Churchill should be handling 55 million bushels of grain a year. It still handles only 24 million bushels. Its capacity is not being used to the fullest extent. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) made the unfortunate suggestion that Churchill is a luxury we cannot afford, but I was happy to note that other members of the Conservative party disavowed and dissociated themselves from that nonsensical remark. It can save about 1,100 miles in the transportation of grain going to Europe from Saskatoon if it goes through Churchill, but the insurance rates discriminate. This is something which the Ministry of Transport and the government should be examining. These rates are five times those from Montreal. There probably is as much risk and as many mishaps in the marine industry out of Montreal as there ever has been out of Churchill.
The Minister of Transport has, I think, made an effort to try to get the federal government off the hook for some of the money for Prince Rupert. He is finding that it is not working, and from events and statements made in the last week or two it looks as though the government has realized it better not do anything to halt, delay, or renege on commitments made for that port. I am assuming that it is well in hand and going ahead at full speed and that the money will be forthcoming in the full amount from the federal government, and it will not be trying to collect all the costs of the infrastructure, through user charges since infrastructure costs have been subsidized in every other port for decades.
The most important item in the resolution to be considered is Mr. Justice Hall commission's recommendation regarding the statutory rates, or what is commonly called the Crow rate. Mr. Justice Hall not only recommends that the Crow rate be maintained for the grain producers of western Canada, but he also recommends that the principle in the statutory rates be extended to finished and processed agricultural products. This includes other commodities in western Canada, not only grain.
The main reason for the statutory rates is not to provide some kind of handout or subsidy to grain producers for the existence of and the continuing and maintaining of the Crow rate in terms of costs of shipping grain for farmers in western Canada, but to keep us in a position to compete with the other grain exporting nations in the world. For example, the average haul of Canadian grain to the Lakehead or salt water ports is

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Grain
over 900 miles and the next longest haul is in the United States of about 700 miles, but most of that is accessible inland water systems, which are a much cheaper way to move any commodity. Australia and Argentina are among our biggest competitors. They grow about 90 per cent of their grain within a couple of hundred miles of salt water.
The benefits of grain exports bring in anywhere from $1 to $3 billion a year in foreign exchange, which benefits the nation as a whole. Therefore it is only fair and logical that the nation as a whole should share in the cost of getting that grain delivered to our ports.
We are not objecting, and never objected, to the railroads recovering their proven costs of transporting our grain. Mr. Justice Hall said, and this is another aspect of his recommendation, that if grain producers continue to pay the Crow rate, the national government should pay directly to the railroads the difference between the Crow rate and the actual proven costs of moving grain, in other words, the compensatory rate.
I noticed in recent months that the railroads now talk about the commercial rate, not the compensatory rate. That is another little bag of tricks coming from the railroads. The commercial rate on grain from Wakaw to Thunder Bay is something in the order of $3.15 a hundred whereas the compensatory rate-I am guessing but I think I am fairly close-is somewhere in the order of $1 to $1.25 a hundred at the most.
The Minister of Transport says, and he said it when he was in Winnipeg at the beginning of April, that there has been a dramatic shift of western opinion on the Crow. He admitted that the struggle to change the rate will not be easy. Well, he is perfectly right about that. If he thinks that he has ever been in fights before, they will be nothing compared to trying to meddle with the Crow rates. Those who use phrases like "Crow benefit" or "Crow value"-that, in my opinion and in the opinion of many grain producers and farm organizations, is a neat way of destroying the Crow rate that grain producers pay.
The minister and his two predecessors from time to time made reference to trying to get a consensus among the grain industry or farm organizations to the effect that there needs to be significant support from a major part of the agricultural community in the prairie provinces. For a long time, ever since the Hall commission report came down, we have had significant support from a major number of grain producers in western Canada and the most significant and major. farm organizations.
The minister will be well advised to accept the recommendations of Mr. Justice Hall, not only in terms of justice and fair play, but politically. It is called for by the National Farmers' Union, the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture which represents something in the order of 25 or 26 different commodity groups in my province, and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which represents something in the order of 75,000 grain producers, about as many as there are in Alberta and Manitoba together. They are unanimous on this. That is why I urge the minister to get rid of the obstinancy and stubbornness of his two predecessors on fully implementing the Hall commission recommendations.
I know the minister will have problems with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and Treasury Board about the money the federal government would have to pay out, the difference between the Crow and the compensatory rate, but it will not be all new money. We can do away with branch line subsidies, quit buying hopper cars and putting up money to help the railways repair their box cars. Make them do it. It is their job.
The tragedy over the past number of years has been that we have refused, under the law that is now in effect, to make the railroads perform, to the point where the national government, the Canadian Wheat Board, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have had no choice but to purchase railway rolling stock, mainly hopper cars.
If Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations are implemented, this will not be all a new or additional cost to the national treasury. The major part of that cost will be made up from money already being paid out in the form of branch line subsidies, railway rolling stock, and the repair of railway cars.
It makes eminent good sense to implement this recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall. I have never been able to understand the reluctance of the two previous administrations to get it done. When you look at who wants the Crow abolished and who wants the Crow benefit or Crow value, when you look at who they are, who they speak for and who they represent, it tells you something. They represent the same kind of reactionary stuff that we had prior to ever having a wheat board. They speak for the private grain trade and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
There are a few organizations on the prairies which agree that the Crow rate should be done away with. Who are they? Who do they represent? A few hundred. Compare that to what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool speaks for. There can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of grain producers and, I submit the majority of the public in western Canada, want the Hall commission recommendation implemented and they want it implemented immediately.
The official opposition was waffled on this, as has the governing party. In a campaign bulletin dated April 19 last year, the Conservative party said, and 1 quote:
We have promised that the Crowsnest Pass freight rate be maintained.
After the election we got a different story. The Conservative minister of transport told the UGG convention in Calgary:
I want to assure you that any change in application of the Crow benefit will come only after there is full consultation with producers.
That does not sound to me like maintaining the Crow for grain producers. When confronted in committee, the former minister said:
I want to assure this House that any change in the structure application of the Crow benefit, value or advantage will only come after there is full consultation.


May 2, 1980

That meant that even after consulting it was his intention, and that of his government, to change the structure and application of the Crow rate. If he had said he was changing it in line with the Hall commission recommendation, we and the grain producers would have had no doubt where he and his party stood on the matter. I hope today he will say unequivocally on behalf of his party that they fully support and accept the implementation of Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation as it pertains to the Crow rate.
1 urge this House to accept this resolution. 1 want to say to the minister that, if the House passes the resolution, it is not mandatory but requests him to consider the advisability. It does not say he will do it. I hope he will accept it from the House as an expression of significant opinion, the opinion of not only Mr. Justice Hall but of tens of thousands of grain producers, local governments, the government of Saskatchewan and many rural and urban municipalities in the west which have called for this to be done. I hope members on all sides will accept this resolution and that the minister will go to bat for working on implementing the remaining recommendations of the Hall commission not yet implemented.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I too have to leave in a few minutes for Quebec. This will be my third speech today, although I did not give the one on containers. But I would be remiss if I did not comment on what the hon. member just put on the record.
I am stunned at my lack of decisiveness today! 1 have had great opportunities today which I missed! During the question period there was the possibility to me of deciding on the price of oil. There was the possibility of deciding on improving a tariff on the export of hydroelectric power to the United States. Now there is the possibility of solving all problems pertaining to the grain industry. Here I am without the guts, energy, and the audacity to do it, and I feel frustrated!
We on this side of the House could have agreed to this motion quite easily because the language is simply "should consider the advisability of'. Therefore, one could have done a generous thing for the day, a BA, a bonne action, and approved of that because this motion contains ideas that one should indeed consider.
Some of this I thought had already common acceptance, for example, the "guarantee of the Crow rate for the farmer." I did not think that had to be considered because that guarantee is one of the basic foundations of the existence of Canada. I did not think it had to be looked at again. I am surprised to find it here as a questionable item. I do not think anybody would take it away from western farmers. What could be changed is the formula under which it is handled, but nobody intends to deprive western farmers of this advantage.
With regard to the "increased use of the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert", I have read about Churchill in recent weeks. I have found that efforts are being made all around. The National Harbours Board is putting a considerable amount of money into dredging the port and improving its
Transportation of Grain
capacity in order to receive larger ships. The railway leading to Churchill is part of the railway rehabilitation system and substantial amounts of money are spent on that. The Canadian Wheat Board pays a lot of attention to that, so I do not think hon. members can say there has been a lack of interest on the part of the Canadian government and institutions in the development of the port of Churchill.
On Prince Rupert the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was kind to me today-he has not always been as kind in recent days. My distinguished predecessor might use that as a subject of conversation today if he cares to do so. I have often repeated that what I have been doing there does not deserve the kind of treatment it has been receiving. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on one of the first days of the present session implied that I was being less of a Canadian than my predecessor was in my approach to Prince Rupert. I was not. I do not think I have to take any advice on how to be a Canadian even from the distinguished Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think my dedication to Quebec or to Ontario or to the west can be questioned.
1 am one of those, and there are many in the House, who can claim that they have an affection for Quebec, for central Canada, an affection for the Atlantic provinces, and an affection for western Canada. So this sort of thing hurts me if I may say so in the intimate mood in which we are operating this afternoon in this chamber. It hurts me because my dedication to the success of Prince Rupert, of the grain terminal port there, is as great as anything I have felt in recent years. I am dedicated to the success of this venture and I do not think I am doing anything which does not make sense.


An hon. Member:: We are worried.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I worry, too. I do not think I have done anything very different from my distinguished predecessor in this matter. The question of who should build the wharf, the dock, is one which he left unclear. When 1 told the members of the consortium that they would have to compensate on a cost-recovery basis for the expenditure made on it, they were not surprised. 1 did not think I was that cruel or that unfair. I just thought 1 would put some finality to some of the discussions which my predecessor once removed had started. He was in a bit of an expensive mood in some of the communiques he issued but I think he never did say to the consortium that they would get the dock free.
As a matter of fact, if hon. members read the communique of January 31 it is implied-it is even said-that the option was open to the consortium to build the dock itself or to let the National Harbours Board do so. If my distinguished predecessor had offered it free, then obviously there would not have been reference to the possibility of the consortium building it. Elementary, my dear Watson!
I am just saying to western Canadians through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transport is rather sympathetic and a Canadian as good as any around here or elsewhere, and consequently he is not trying to "mess up" the Prince Rupert

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Grain
project. On the contrary, he is trying to make sure that it will be a success. So much by way of comment on Prince Rupert.
As to "paying the railway directly for their losses," well, there is discussion on that subject. If one is to convert the Crow rate to Crow "benefit" or Crow "value", I understand there is a great debate going on as to how it should be done- should it be done through the railways, should it be done through the farmers. I understand that intelligent men disagree on how to go about it. This is really the point.
Part of the motion says "Give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement." Again, there is a debate on that point and the setting up of a grain transport commissioner is approved by most.
There are different points of view on many items in this motion. This is why, though I have great sympathy with many of the elements of this motion, I find some of them to be of a more debatable nature, and I find the totality to be unacceptable. I just want to say I am not against the resolution systematically.
There is one note on which I wish to end. It has to do with the approach taken to the Crowsnest Pass rate. To an easterner or a central Canadian this is a great challenge. The hon. member who introduced the motion referred to some words 1 have said on this subject. Indeed, in travelling in the west in recent days and listening to representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other people, I had the feeling that there is a desire on the part of many people, while defending the Crowsnest rate as an entitlement, to move away from it, having realized that although it has good aspects it has very negative ones also, that it is a double-edged sword preventing, for example, further processing of goods in western Canada.
I have received that impression, talking to people. Coming back to this House after a "holiday" of seven years, and having been the minister responsible for the Wheat Board in 1969, one of the most difficult years in Canadian history-and when things started to go a bit better the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave the job to my friend Otto-having come back to this subject now, I had the impression that there was progress because the Crow rate is a right but also a handicap, an impediment to what is considered by most Canadians to be the normal way of running a railway. This is why I thought one of the things I would like to accomplish as Minister of Transport is to begin that debate soon and, hopefully, to begin it in a mood of friendship, in a mood of search for the common good.
These are some of the remarks I wanted to make to the hon. member in answer to his contribution to this debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on this very interesting motion. I certainly accept the apology of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I know he is probably going out west. I am sure he will read with interest my remarks and we will probably have an opportunity to talk about the motion in more detail over coffee.
I also appreciated the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I think he has clarified, at least in spirit, some of the apprehensions which have been floating around with respect to Prince Rupert. The basic thrust of the motion deals with the implementation of the Hall recommendations and, without patting myself or the previous Conservative government on the back, I think more progress was made in the nine months of our Progressive Conservative government than in any period in total or in part since the Hall report was tabled.
When we look at the specific proposals in the motion dealing with increased utilization of the Port of Churchill, increased utilization of Prince Rupert, the matter of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, the recognition that the railways need more revenue to support an adequate grain carrying fleet and the necessary infrastructure to do that job and the fact that we need hopper cars and motive power, I think in total we as a government addressed those very important considerations.
I know, and I think I am interpreting the Minister of Transport quite accurately, that in spirit he will attempt to carry on with a number of the proposals and initiatives we have started, and Prince Rupert is clearly one of them. As I have indicated privately and publicly, as long as the Minister of Transport and this government continue to carry out some of the important initiatives which have been started, they will certainly have my support and the support of my colleagues on this side of the House because the matter of grain handling and transportation has been cast aside for far too long. It is a very important element in the exporting of a very major and significant agricultural product, and many steps have to be taken. Some are steps which merely require streamlining and a more effective utilization of our existing facilities. Other steps have to be taken which constitute a major quantum leap in increasing our grain moving and handling capacity to meet the challenges of the eighties and on to the year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, you have been around here for a few years. You have heard talk of Prince Rupert for many, many years, and it has always been recognized as an important component of the grain handling and delivery system. Quite frankly, we have taken the approach that in this country we have four major grain delivery ports, namely, Thunder Bay, Vancouver, Churchill, and Prince Rupert. We need them all. We must utilize them all. Churchill can be utilized to a greater extent, and Prince Rupert certainly can be utilized to a greater extent not only to provide additional capacity but also to provide an alternative outlet when we have the kinds of breakdowns and difficulties we have experienced in the past at the port of Vancouver.
Hon. members know that our government took very positive steps to ensure that the Port of Prince Rupert was going to be developed in a co-operative way. We felt that the federal government had a responsibility because this development was needed not only in the interests of the grain producer and the western Canadian economy, but it was also needed in terms of the over-all national interest of Canada.
May 2, 1980

It was in that spirit that we moved toward putting together a memorandum of understanding at a very early date after assuming office with the consortium, and subsequently called upon and received the co-operation of the provinces and other components of the grain trade to ensure that this facility would be developed. It was in that co-operative spirit that we proceeded. The Minister of Transport and I have had some discussions privately on this matter, and I am pleased that the project is going forward on the basis of the memorandum of understanding and subsequent discussions which took place and that the commencement of construction of this facility will begin, hopefully, this month. I am hoping that that is the target the minister has in mind. Presumably on his venture out to British Columbia along with other cabinet ministers, confirmation of that will be made. I hope that will be the case. We would certainly applaud him and congratulate him on that because it is something that is needed. Unfortunately, in my view the port should be coming onstream today rather than simply being started in so far as construction is concerned.
We undertook to take steps to utilize the Port of Churchill to a greater degree. We were successful in bringing in the MV Arctic to take on a cargo of barley three weeks after the closing of the Port of Churchill. That was a very major breakthrough, which could pave the way for the extension of the shipping season and provide a more all-season port in that northern area.
We also undertook to continue the work of upgrading the rail line. That is something that has to be continued. We undertook to experiment with the utilization of ballast cars, which are owned by the federal government and which lie idle in the winter and are not being used. We undertook to experiment with the utilization of 125 in anticipation that they might very well be effective in carrying grain to the Port of Churchill. So there are those things which have been done.
As a result of the task force findings, we also undertook to increase winter grain movement by rail out of the Port of Thunder Bay. We were able to move something in the order of one million tonnes of grain to east coast ports this winter, and 1 think that is good because it does prove that we can utilize the system we now have in place in a more effective fashion.
The hon. member talked about the Crow rate. I really have difficulty understanding quite clearly what the hon. member is saying, because on one hand he is saying, "Maintain the Crow rate; do not touch a thing".


Jean-Luc Pepin: And then change it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member accused me, the present minister and the previous minister, of tampering with the Crow rate, and yet this very motion suggests tampering with the Crow rate. The hon. member says we should extend the Crow rate to processed products and pay the railways directly for the losses. We have been saying that the Crow rate in statute form enshrined in law must remain. We have also said, and the hon. member is now saying it in this motion, that the railways should be adequately compensated for the movement of grain.
Transportation of Grain


Jean-Luc Pepin: Right on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no disagreement on that. Where there is some debate and discussion-and there is no clear consensus, is on how the federal government will pay the difference. That is what is implicit in this motion-how it will be distributed. Will it be paid directly to the railways-that is what this motion suggests-or will it be distributed in some other form? There is not a clear-cut consensus on that point. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot suggest on one hand the maintenance of the status quo, and recommend change on the other.
The fact that our government, the previous Liberal government and, I suspect, this government, are looking at ways and means of improving is not to suggest that we are going to destroy that fundamental right of western Canadian producers. We have never talked about taking it out of statute form, but it is part and parcel of the NDP game of politics that they spread anxiety and fear amongst producers. I call that a sort of deceitful act on the part of the NDP, and it should not be tolerated by any political party. I think this is a very important issue. We all agree that the statutory freight rate is something very fundamental which should be enshrined in law and continued, but this motion is just one solution, and there have been other solutions proposed.
Surely it is incumbent upon anyone who is a responsible legislator to consider the views of producers at large and, hopefully, to arrive at a consensus which would be acceptable to all concerned. That does not deviate from or subtract from the responsibility of the federal government one iota. The thing is that if we are not going to look at the Crow rate, it means we are going to go on paying the branch line subsidies, buying hopper cars and rehabilitating railways, with the railways claiming losses.
What is suggested is that there might be a better way of handling the whole package, and at this point there does not appear to be a clear consensus regarding a satisfactory package. But the preservation and the enshrinement of the statutory freight rate is fundamental to the western Canadian grain producer. How it is distributed is part of the ongoing debate.
What must be considered is the impact of the freight rate as it applies to the further processing of agricultural products in western Canada. For example, if you look at the movement of rapeseed for export from Lloydminster, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to Vancouver, you find that the freight rate on raw rapeseed which goes to Vancouver and subsequently to the export market is 24.5 cents per hundredweight. If you move it in the form of oil in tankers, the freight rate is $1.03 per hundredweight. If you move it in the form of meal, which moves in the same hopper car as raw rapeseed, it costs $1.08 per hundredweight. So you see that in the application of those freight rates there is a disincentive to process that rapeseed in western Canada, an incentive to market it in its raw form to the market and thereby export jobs as well.

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Grain
1 see the hon. member shaking his head in the negative. If he can rationalize that, I would certainly like to hear it. I simply said that, essentially, the product moves in the same containers and, as a matter of fact, as a result of the CTC findings there is a compensatory rate which has been applied here and subsidies are currently being provided by the federal government as well as some assistance by provincial governments to reduce the differential. However, at present, there is a disincentive to the processing of the product in western Canada.
I believe we must look at agriculture in its total context, not only the production but indeed a further processing of agricultural products so as to broaden our industrial base and thereby to provide jobs to western Canadians. What 1 am saying is that there are no simple answers, as is suggested in this motion. I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forth the motion because this is a debate which should take place.
I hope the debate will take place in a rational and non-emotional fashion because the statutory rate or the Crowsnest Pass freight rate is an emotional subject. However, in the last three or four years, there has been a tendency on the part of producers, producer organizations and other groups, to look at the issue rationally. I think this is a good sign because we all recognize that there is a fundamental principle here. The production and marketing of grain are considered to be important to the nation as a whole-to bring advantages to all of us. I think it is generally agreed that a freight subsidy is required in order for the producers to remain competitive and so as to ensure that they have a fair chance of acquiring the necessary profitability, not only to produce grain for domestic consumption but to produce it for export consumption as well, thereby contributing, as the hon. member for Regina West indicated, toward our balance of payments.
Some of the other actions that were taken by our administration which synchronized with the thrust of this motion are, first, the fact that we tried to establish a spirit of co-operation and confidence within the grain handling and transportation system. It is fair to say that for quite a long time there was much fingerpointing. The farmers blamed the railways, the railways blamed the Wheat Board, and labour was blamed. We tried to bring the components of grain handling and the transportation system together. We brought in the provinces and, as a result, we were able to convince them that they too had a responsibility for this important industry. As a result, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and even the railways, purchased hopper cars. CNR purchased 1,000 hopper cars for grain. The Canadian Pacific placed orders for some 95 locomotives which will be delivered by 1981. The CNR undertook to acquire some 35 locomotives each year.
There is considerable track upgrading, some double tracking, some additional trackage and some new sidings. There has been a co-ordination of grain handling and transportation system as a result of the appointment of Dr. Horner as the grain transportation co-ordinator, and I think the concept of having a co-ordinator has been accepted and endorsed by all parties in the House. There may be different versions of his
terms of reference, but I think appointing a co-ordinator has provided an opportunity to gain better co-ordination and to utilize the system better. It has assisted the Canadian Wheat Board in the task of grain handling and transportation. My discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board have indicated to me that, given the steps that have been taken over the last 12 months, they are now able to go out with a greater degree of confidence and market the grain.
The smooth and efficient functioning of the transportation system enhances the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board. So far as customers are concerned, confidence is very important. Given the improvements that have been made and that, I am sure, will be continued by the minister, we will be successful in achieving the target of moving 23 million metric tons of grain to export position this year. Perhaps it will be 22.5 tons. We established a fairly ambitious target, but I believe one has to establish ambitious targets in order to achieve that goal. If it is only 22.5 million metric tons, I will certainly not blame the Minister of Transport for the fact that it is half a million tonnes less. The fact is that steps have been taken and I hope he will be able to continue ensuring that those initiatives are taken, because if we can market the grain and move it, I have every confidence that the producers will produce it.
We have established a target and I am sure that this minister and the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Senator Argue) have accepted the target of 30 million metric tons for export by 1985 as being realistic. Given the steps that have been taken and the fact that the minister at least implied that he will continue to follow through on these initiatives-I am sure there will be others which will be brought to his attention which, we hope, he can act upon to improve the system and expand its capacity-I am sure we will be able to meet those targets.
I can assure the minister and the House that if we can meet that target, it will not only be healthy for western Canada but healthy for our total economy. Remember that when a farmer grows a bushel of grain he provides jobs in Ontario and throughout the whole country because the farmers' hired hands are working in the factories of Ontario and in other parts of Canada. That is a very important element. When that grain is exported, it provides us with needed foreign exchange and it improves our position as a nation. As the old saying out west goes, when the farmer has money, everybody has money. 1 hope we can continue to work together to improve the system. I do not think we should take rash steps in the short term but we can evolve and make progress in the long term.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, probably it is appropriate that one former minister should follow another former minister. We both came to this House in the famous class of 68. After some three weeks of being elected or participating here in the House, we went to the United Nations and straightened out that august body. I think it took us about two weeks to make that operation work the way we wanted to see it working.
May 2, 1980

I, for one, have returned to the House of Commons, particularly to the private members' hour, after some four or five years. For some years as a minister I did not participate in private members' hour. It was one of the areas which I missed during that particular period.
One item mentioned this afternoon was the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is a very regular participant in private members' hour. Over some seven years it was my privilege to debate on a very regular basis with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, either agreeing with him in some of the propositions he was putting forward, or in some other instances finding them so expensive that not even he really believed they should have been implemented.
Similarly Mr. Douglas, the then hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, participated in private members' hour.
I remember when I was in this seat as parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance that the opposition had decided to gang up on a committee of the whole operation. At eight o'clock or 8.01 they had a quorum in the House of Commons and were prepared to vote on a particular motion in a bill. It was my responsibility to stand up as parliamentary secretary waiting for my minister to arrive to speak for some 20 minutes on that particular section of the bill. I well remember Mr. Douglas referring to me as "Horatio at the Bridge". So, there are many pleasant memories one has of private members' hour.
I think this motion is properly drafted. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) indicated that it probably could have been accepted by the government because of its wording indicating that the government should consider the advisability of a particular approach. I commend to any member who contemplates putting a motion in private members' hour that that is the wording which should be used. Quite often there is more possibility of the government accepting that kind of a motion-to study it, to look at it and to implement some of the items suggested-than by simply indicating that the government "shall" and putting that compulsion where it will be impossible for the government to accede to the request.
One of the better things which has happened to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is that he served as a minister of the Crown. Although he was a very dynamic member in opposition, I think he is probably better in that role now because he has had the experience of knowing what the demands are in a ministry, particularly in a very difficult portfolio. As one who sat on the outside for almost a year looking on, I would say that he was one of the ministers who had obviously done his homework. He was really dedicated and sincere in trying to make some changes, changes along the lines that he suggested here this afternoon, some of which were implemented by the former Liberal government and some by the Conservative government.
This is a splendid report which Mr. Justice Hall brought forward. We know that it was released in April of 1977. It strongly favoured the extended use of the Port of Churchill. I am pleased that motions such as this and reports such as the
Transportation of Grain
one brought forward by Mr. Justice Hall tend to emphasize that particular approach. Although it will not be used to the extent other areas are used for the export of grain because it may be small in the whole, I do not think it is something that should be ignored. Having lived in that particular area for some two years while working with Canadian Nickel, and later in the Northwest Territories, I know the importance given to that particular port. Something along this line to improve it is something which I think must be looked at very carefully by any government.
The report indicated that the potential of Churchill was to depend upon the continued use of government hopper cars on the Canadian National Railways route, improved marine navigation technology, extended shipping insurance season, continued high performance of the terminal elevator, and the orderly assembly of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board. The commission claimed that Churchill has the potential to handle 55 million to 60 million bushels of grain provided that improvements to rail-those are the magic words, "provided that". Certain things must be done.
Quite often we are looking for instant solutions where there are no instant solutions. Because of the difficulty involved, quite often there is a tendency to abandon the idea that such a conclusion can be reached, given the right spirit, forgetting about some of the political debate which goes on in the House, and recognizing that some of the goals are appropriate. Rather than saying that they should be done tomorrow or the next day, we should recognize that there is a term which must be used or applied when these things can be studied, so that they can be properly implemented and we will not be wasting a lot of money trying to do something in too much of a hurry to appease maybe the demands of people in the area, opposition members or, for that matter, members of the government who want to see particular actions taken.
I think it has been said by all three previous speakers that many of the recommendations contained in the Hall report in fact have been implemented. A great deal has been done by the federal government in support of the Port of Churchill. The National Harbours Board spent almost $16 million on port and port facility improvements between 1968 and 1979. My information is that they plan to spend a further $8 million by 1982. The CN rail line to Churchill is included in the prairie branch line rehabilitation program of the federal government. I am informed that expenditures between 1977 and 1979 approached $13 million, with planned expenditures of $4.9 million this year. This reconstruction work will increase the load-bearing and traffic volume capacity on the line.
I am advised that the Canadian Wheat Board will make the maximum feasible use of the port for grain exports, including co-operating fully with Federal Commerce and Navigation Ltd. for the employment of the MV Arctic in grain service before and after the official Lloyds shipping season. The insurance underwriters obviously are under constant pressure from all interested parties to extend the shipping season, but we realize they cannot be ordered to do so.

May 2, 1980
Transportation of Grain
The National Harbours Board has sustained an accumulated deficit of some $4.7 million between 1972 and 1978 in the operation of the port. Rather than looking upon that in a negative way, 1 think it is a good investment for something that is very definitely required, not only for the port but also for the export of grain.
I have other items I would like to comment upon regarding this particular motion. I know other members want to speak to this particular debate, so I will close by simply indicating that 1 think it is appropriate the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) brought forward this particular motion and that he has framed it in the way he has because I think the government must look at all the things suggested in the Hall commission report that are highlighted in a motion such as this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to make a short intervention in this private members' debate. It has been quite a number of years since the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and myself came to this institution. I would say that the hon. member for Regina West is highly qualified to make remarks on this subject as he expressed them in his motion. 1 would say his qualifications go back to the days he spent in the CPR many, many years ago at a little town called Richmound, Saskatchewan, even to my own home town of Walsh, Alberta, and to Medicine Hat where we first had the privilege of meeting each other. It goes back quite a long way. But I would say that there is another approach to this very, very complex problem which I want to put before the House this late afternoon. Of course these are personal remarks which refer to the very specific portion of his motion that deals with the guaranteeing of the Crow rate for the farmer and the extension of it to the processed equivalent of raw materials.
1 make no apologies when I say that some of these remarks are a repetition of what I said in the Speech from the Throne
debate on April 18. At that time 1 described them as remarks that were too important for partisan politics. The Crow rate issue is a matter for which it is high time that it come out into the open and be given more discussions.
We are all very familiar with another enormously important debate which is going on in Canada now, and that is the referendum debate in Quebec. 1 would quickly add that the Crow debate presently under way in western Canada is, in its own significant way, every bit as important to western Canada, and I would even say for all of Canada, as is the referendum debate in the province of Quebec. Over the past two years there have been a number of excellent public debates on this issue, all of which have taken place in western Canada at special annual farm meetings or special symposiums called to discuss the subject.
The subject of the Crow rate is now freely discussed with not nearly as much emotion as it was for many, many years. Only in western Canada are these discussions taking place. There has never been a proper debate in this House of Commons or in Parliament on this issue. The closest we have ever come to such a debate was on the PC opposition day of May 26, 1977, when essentially the same subject, the Hall report, was discussed on that day.
Over the years we have all avoided a direct debate on the issue, by a variety of points of view expressed on the deliberately vague phrase, "Crow benefits". Various contributing issues dealing with such matters as hopper cars, producer cars, switching, offboard quotas and our domestic feed grain policy have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne, Northumberland-Miramichi):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five o'clock p.m., the hour provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 4.30 p.m. pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, April 29, 1980.
At 4.52 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 5, 1980