1974-10-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, after discussions among the parties, a basic agreement has been reached as to the manner in which we should proceed, today, tomorrow and Friday with the business of supply.
As the House is aware, the main estimates have been discussed in the last parliament and in this parliament in standing committees, and there is a special order dealing with the remainder of the business and how to dispose of it by Friday afternoon. When orders of the day are called I understand there is agreement to dispose of the motion for concurrence in main estimates and of the motion for concurrence in supplementary estimates (A) without debate. The motion for first reading of the consequent appropriation bill is, of course, not debatable. I understand there is also agreement to dispose of the motion for second reading of the bill without debate. The House will then go into Committee of the Whole on the bill. I understand that there is agreement that all the clauses of the bill be stood and that the committee proceed directly to schedule A of the bill, which refers to the main estimates.
So that consideration of schedule A, that is, the main estimates, may be undertaken in an orderly fashion, it is my understanding that there is agreement that discussion should be organized in the following manner: First, for about an hour to an hour and one half, discussion would be on the estimates of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and can, thereby, cover a broad range of matters relating to financial and personnel management of the government. Second, for about two and one half to three hours, discussion would be on the estimates of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Third, for about two and one half to three hours, discussion would be on the estimates of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). Fourth, for about two and one half to three hours, discussion would be on the estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). Fifth, for about two and one half to three hours, discussion would be on the estimates of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan). Sixth, for about two and one half to three hours, discussion would be on the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury).
I should explain that these departments were selected by the opposition parties as those on which they wished to concentrate their discussion. If there is still time remaining before the time on Friday when all outstanding questions must be put, discussion could cover other aspects of the bill, whether in committee of the whole or on third reading stage.
There is an understanding as well with respect to debate that, in order to give all members an opportunity of discussing these departments, each member should be restricted to one 20 minute speech in the committee on each department, but that this restriction would not apply in cases of direct questioning and answering. Nor would a minister be prevented from rebutting points made during the discussion.
It would be possible to make an order with regard to the plan that I have just outlined, but such an order might impose too much rigidity on the debate and I do not believe it will be necessary. If there is difficulty, the committee could rise, report progress and the House could then deal with the necessary order.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has generally outlined the results of the discussions that we have had and the agreements at which we have attempted to arrive. For the reasons I assigned earlier when we first had these discussions, namely that the government had put itself into a very serious predicament, the reasons for which I am too polite to go into now, regarding passage of the estimates, our concern for the recipients of government cheques- pensioners, salaried individuals and so on-persuaded us to forgo the rights we would usually have and go along with this arrangement, and we are continuing to do so.
I want to congratulate the government House leader on persuading his reluctant colleagues to appear in the House to answer questions that will be put to them, and I hope they will be a lot more candid in this procedure than they are normally at question period.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to confirm the statement that has been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) with respect to the arrangement that has been made for debate during the next three days. If it sounded to anyone by the first remarks of the government House leader as if we were passing over a number of stages without debate, then that is only so that when we get to the actual items in the schedule to the bill we can have all the time that three days will make possible.
It is also understood that this is a program to be followed generally rather than with rigidity. It does work out in such a manner that we would be dealing with two
28305-41'/i

October 23, 1974
Business of the House
departments today, two tomorrow and two on Friday. Of course, if we conclude some of the departments earlier than we thought might be the case, that would leave more time at the end.
This is, of course, a new experience for some members to be dealing with estimates in the House, or in committee of the whole.


Gerald William Baldwin: And for some ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, a new experience for some ministers. We hope it will be a fruitful three days, not only for what we do during these three days but as an experiment in dealing with estimates on the floor of the House.
The only other comment I wish to make while I am on my feet is an unusual one in that I should like to correct something that was said by the hon. member for Peace River. I heard him say it just now and he also said it on the radio this morning. I think it should be clear that pensions are not covered in the estimates. Pensions are provided by statute and are payable whether or not estimates pass. Certain salaries and such things are covered in the estimates of government expenses generally. But let us not alarm our pensioners with the thought that there is going to be any delay in their getting the meagre pensions that they now receive.

Mb. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to confirm, on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit party, that we took an active part in working out a new formula for the business of the House, and especially the study of credits and the main budget that they may be studied in an orderly and planned fashion. We feel that this proposal which was agreed to unanimously should not be rigid and change the practice in years past where we diddled around without really getting to the bottom of the problems.
Mr. Speaker, according to this agreement, it is also understood, which I believe the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) forgot to mention, that on third reading, any hon. member will be allowed to speak freely on any part of the credits.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), in view of the answer given by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that with the cooperation of the opposition members it would be possible to hasten the introduction of a bill lowering old age security eligibility to 60. This agreement for the debate on estimates and the unanimous cooperation the government gets from this side of the House show that there is no need to wait till October 1975 to study the old age security legislation. We realize we could study as rapidly this bill that would be most welcome by 60 year old Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I have the growing impression that those who cooperate most in this House are members sitting on this side.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, to repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of LIP funds allocated in 1973-74 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by (a) Members of the Liberal Party (b) Members of the Progressive Conservative Party?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) Constituencies represented by members of the Liberal Party, $37,181,000; (b) Constituencies represented by members of the Progressive Conservative Party, $22,665,000.
# (oooo)


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since the amendment to the National Housing Act in June, 1973 (a) what provinces have signed an agreement with the government under the terms of the amendment (b) how many projects have been effected or are underway (i) in which province (ii) what is the nature of each such project (iii) what is the value of each such project?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a) The Neighbourhood Improvement Program is the only one included in the 1973 amendments of the National Housing Act which requires a formal agreement with the provinces. Under this program, agreements have now been signed with all provinces, except the Province of Nova Scotia, (b) NIP is a flexible program to upgrade neighbourhood environments and it may include selecting neighbourhoods and formulating redevelopment plans; acquiring and clearing land to provide open space or community facilities; acquiring and clearing land for low and medium income housing; constructing or acquiring and improving neighbourhood recreation or social facilities; developing occupancy and building maintenance standards; making loans for commercial improvements; relocating those individuals dispossessed of housing through NIP and of the exposition of the project and improving municipal services and public utilities. The selection of any of these steps is left to the
October 23, 1974

community and the municipality, within budgetary restraints, and federal involvement is confined to ensuring that the criteria for the program are respected. To date, no project has yet been completed; five projects have reached the implementation stage. These are:
Federal
Contributions
Province	$000
Corner Brook, Newfoundland		639
Sudbury, Ontario	 337
Calgary, Alberta	 1,031
Edmonton, Alberta	 1,031
Rossland, British Columbia		125
There are also 31 other projects (neighbourhoods) that have reached the planning stages; these are:
	Number of	Federal
	N eighbourhoods	Contributions
Province	Selected	$000
Ontario		
Ottawa	... 3	1,290Grimsby	. . . 1	258Niagara Falls	... 2	645Sudbury	... 1	953Kingston	. . . 1	645Lindsay	... 1	344Sarnia	. . . 1	645Twp. of Sarnia	. . . 1	430Ridgetown	. . . 1	258Windsor	... 1	860Borough of Etobicoke	.. . 1	860Sault Ste. Marie	... 1	860Twp. of East Gwillimbury	. . . 2	430Manitoba	Winnipeg	. . . 2	2,750Saskatchewan	Hudson Bay	... 1	100Meadow Lake	... 1	112British Columbia	Vancouver	... 2	1,500Powell River	. . 1	125New Westminster	... 2	625Victoria	... 2	1,000Coquitlam	... 1	250Prince Rupert	... 2	250


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is the government taking any steps to keep the Port of Montreal open year round and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the government intend to use containers in the Port of Montreal and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the government intend to charge tolls on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
government is taking steps to keep the Port of Montreal
Order Paper Questions
open year round. Canadian Coast Guard Icebreakers maintain a navigable channel in the St. Lawrence River from the Gulf to Montreal during winter months.
2.	During 1973 a record total of 116,405 containers were handled at the Port of Montreal. The number has been increasing each year since 1967.
3.	Tolls are only payable for the use of the St. Lawrence Seaway which extends from the St. Lambert Lock at Montreal to the most western lock at Sault Ste. Marie on the Great Lakes.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many veterans are presently on a waiting list for domiciliary care in hospitals and veterans homes?
2.	How many have been on this list for (a) more than three months (b) more than six months?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 268.
2.	(a) 26; (b) 161.


Mr. Howie: What is the total amount of money paid to date in respect of the prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Cost of New Brunswick Newspaper Prosecution*1*:
William L. Hoyt, Q.C. Hoyt, Mockler, Allen, Dixon & Godin	Legal fees	$101,786Fredericton, New Brunswick (Crown Counsel)	Disbursement	27,252T. Joseph Scanlon, Dean of the School of Journalism,	Fees	9,100Carleton University,	Disbursements	3,367
Ottawa, Ontario
(Special Assistant to Crown Counsel-
Consultant)
Winnifred Johnston	630
Saint John, New Brunswick
(Witness)


[Stage Direction]
<* Does not include travelling expenses and time of Department of Justice personnel and of officers on the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research.
Mr. Reynolds: How many people were directly involved with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1960 and every year up to and including 1974 to date?

October 23, 1974
Order Paper Questions


André Ouellet: The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was not formed until 1968. The number of people employed since that time is: 1968-846; 1969-1493; 1970-1517; 1971-1624; 1972-1807; 1973-2034; 1974-2236.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	On March 31, 1974, how many public servants in the Department of Veterans Affairs listed their mother tongue as (a) English (b) French (c) other?
2.	How many listing (a) English (b) French as their mother tongue are considered by the Department to be bilingual?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. (a) 5,849; (b) 1,970; (c) 720.
2. This information is not available to the Department and an extensive and costly study would be required to provide a complete answer to this question.


Mr. Neil: 1.	On what date was the two-price wheat payment authorized to be made to 1972-73 special permit holders?
2.	On what date were these cheques mailed?
3.	What was the total number of cheques issued?
4.	How many cheques were issued for the incorrect amount which resulted in the recipient being called upon to make a refund to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. May 23, 1974.
2.	June 3, 1974.
3.	9,586.
4.	7,529. Refund is to the federal government-not the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Neil: From August 1 to the date this question is answered (a) what has been the total amount paid by the Canadian Wheat Board for demurrage on grain ships delayed at the West Coast because of slowdown and/or the grainhandlers strike (b) what amounts have been paid by the Canadian Wheat Board under penalty clauses in contracts for delivery of grain as a result of the grainhandlers strike on the West Coat (c) has the Canadian Wheat Board purchased any grain from other exporting countries and arranged delivery from that other exporting country to fulfill contract commitments which the Canadian Wheat Board was unable to fulfill because of the strike?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) $1,484,226.12; (b) Nil; (c) No. Payments in (a) resulted from earlier shipping delays, not from recent strike or slowdown.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 1 and 4 are acceptable to the government.
ELECTION EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY CANDIDATES-1974 Motion No. 1-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a return showing, by electoral districts, the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate in the General Election of July 8, 1974, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted on behalf of each candidate, as required under the provisions of Section 63 of the Canada Elections Act; and showing also, by electoral districts, the names of all candidates on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of papers showing the studies prepared by departments or agencies which permitted the Department of Manpower and Immigration to make the allocations for LIP projects among the various constituencies.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 6 and 7 are acceptable to the government subject to the agreement of the veterans' organizations to tabling of correspondence by them.
I would ask that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, telegrams and minutes of meetings between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the National Veterans Organizations having to do with the report of the Study Committee on the basic rate of pension, during the years 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and minutes of meetings between the government and the National Veterans Organizations have to do with the extension of the Veterans' Land Act during the years 1968 to September 1974.
Motion agreed to.
October 23, 1974


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion was expressing government policy in London on Monday when he said that the government likely would favour British or European takeover bids as compared to those made by United States firms attempting to invest in Canada? Is that a statement of government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the text of what the minister said in London. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the government policy is non-discriminatory. We are desirous of diversifying foreign investment in Canada insofar as it is necessary but there is no classification of investors as to whether one is more acceptable than another.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I assume from what the Acting Prime Minister says that there is no intention to amend the takeover legislation so that it would serve the purpose the minister had in mind. But I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the government to have one minister stating one position and another minister stating another position. Is it now standard practice for this government to adopt the tactics of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and are we to see this extended now to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN COMPENSATION PAYMENTS ON IMPORTED OIL IN VIEW OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS OF COMPANIES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the revelation that the profits of the Esso Corporation were up 64 per cent in the first nine months of this year, going from $154 million to $252 million over the comparable period last year and assuming that the figures for the other companies when they come out in the next few days will follow the same pattern, is the government considering reducing the amount of the payment made to the oil companies for petroleum brought in on the east coast under the fund set up by the government.
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The view of the government in respect of the effective administration of the compensation program is that it should be paid equally to whatever importer, refiner or other company on an equal basis, but that it would be up to fiscal policy to determine what if any rate of income tax any particular company would have to bear. In that regard I would have to defer to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


INCOME TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, will defer to the Minister of Finance and ask that minister if he would care to comment upon the question I put to his colleague. Given the fact that the deferred taxes of the Esso Corporation belong to the people of Canada and represent an amount in excess of $226 million, will the minister consider levying at least an interest charge on those funds owed to the people of Canada say at the level we now pay for long-term bonds?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in meeting that question coming from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby because I proposed in the last Parliament an amount of $410 million in tax against the oil companies and that budget was defeated by that party.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a final supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows there were many other parts to that budget which many people found objectionable. Regardless of what was in that budget last year, does the government or does it not intend to take specific action in terms of tax policy toward the oil companies who are making what any reasonable person would describe as exorbitant profits.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government's position will be known on the night of the first budget in this Parliament.


FINANCE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance because I want to give him an opportunity to contradict a press report to the effect that he failed miserably in his recent journey out west. Would the minister indicate whether he expects to reach any agreement with certain western provinces in respect of the general ques-

October 23, 1974
Oral Questions
tion of resource industries and in particular a sharing formula in respect of petroleum revenues in this country.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I told the House earlier that the purpose of the visits to the various provinces, not only the four western provinces but also discussions I have had with the provincial treasurer of Ontario, the minister of finance of Quebec and, in a few days with the four Atlantic provinces, was not negotiation, because each level of government has to determine, on its own responsibility to its own legislature, or mine to parliament, the budgetary policy of the jurisdiction it represents. So the visits were in the realm of discussion, and I tried to reveal to the provinces the reasons for my budgetary proposals on May 6 to indicate to them that I felt that the federal parliament and the people of Canada were not receiving a fair share of resource revenues as a result of unilateral provincial action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I also indicated to them that the share between the federal and provincial jurisdictions should be governed in such a fashion that the resource industries in the country have a fair return and a sufficient incentive in cash flow for exploration and development.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am sure that the minister appreciates the fact that there is some area of doubt across the country in respect of this so-called divided jurisdiction at present. Are we then to assume there are no further negotiations between the minister and this government or any provincial government in relation to sharing resource taxation in this country?


John Napier Turner: I am open to further discussions with any of the provinces at the ministerial level and the Prime Minister of Canada has invited all first ministers to a meeting here to discuss the economic situation, including resource taxation, on October 30.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
It is a relatively frequent occurrence that members recommend paroles be granted by the board. Since the board's answers come a number of days and sometimes weeks later, could the minister apply some pressure in order that we get faster answers? In a similar way, when a pardon is requested after 5 years' parole or 5 years of clean record, we are informed that the issuance of a decision may take up to 3 years, which accounts for a total of 8 years. Could the minister approach the board so that pardons are granted, not because of requests by members of parliament, but because the individual concerned paid his debt and wants to resume his normal place in society.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: As the
House knows, the National Parole Board is an independent board and makes a decision on each case after examining all documents and evidence. From time to time members of parliament or others make recommendations or comments, and these are taken into consideration with all other evidence. But I would not want to put undue pressure on the board. On the other hand, I will bring the comments of the hon. member to the chairman of the board and the members.


FINANCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to put a question to the Minister in the light of his answers today to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I put the same question basically yesterday and now, to review it briefly, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he was making any change in reference-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am putting the question if you will listen, but if you are going to talk, you will make it more difficult and I will take longer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I asked the minister yesterday whether he was going to continue to put a tax on the provincial royalties. Now I put this question to the minister. Did he discuss with Thomas Kennedy of the Globe and Mail or any other newspaperman whether the budget package which was brought down last May would remain intact as far as that is concerned. Yesterday the minister said we would have to wait until budget night to ascertain that but this article would suggest he has already told the press what he is going to do.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the only people of the press I met were Mr. Kennedy and all the other reporters who were present at a joint interview I had after my discussions with Mr. Donald Getty, Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs in the province of Alberta, and Mr. Gordon Minie-ly the provincial Treasurer of Finance. It was a joint press conference and at no time did I express myself in those terms.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is so important I think I should put this question to the minister very succinctly. Did he make a statement to Mr. Kennedy to the effect that the budget package of May would remain intact, meaning that the tax affecting the oil industry would remain as of May 8? I think we are entitled to an answer because of the job the Minister of Finance is doing.
October 23, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am under the distinct impression that the minister answered that question in the negative just a moment ago. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appreciate that the Speaker takes into consideration sometimes these people who do not get an opportunity to express themselves. My point of privilege is that Thomas Kennedy said in this article in the Globe and Mail this morning, referring to the minister:
He left Edmonton, visibly tense and exasperated, to put the finishing touches to a new budget, hinting strongly that all the controversial tax provisions contained in last May's version of the federal fiscal package remain intact for a possible reintroduction early in November.
Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for raising this question. First of all, if that statement was made it was a definite leak to the press by the Minister of Finance. Second, if the statement was not made, then I think the minister should say without equivocation that he never discussed that phase at all with the press. It is either a leak or it is not a leak.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reason I made the remark I did was that it was my understanding that the question posed to the minister was whether he had made the reported statement. The minister just finished saying, if I understood him correctly, that the news conference was a joint conference at which he did not make such a statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not care if it was joint or single.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to recognize as supplementary questions at any time a request that a minister simply repeat an answer that he has already given. That is the situation. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON OFFSHORE RIGHTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister tell the House what discussions are in progress with a view to resolving outstanding federal-provincial disputes relating to offshore rights and jurisdictions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I expect to meet Mr. Crosbie the Newfoundland minister who has recently been given the responsibility for that province's interest in offshore oil and gas, within a week or ten days in Ottawa.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That of course deals with only one of the provinces and I believe there are varying conversations going on with other provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the federal government and the four other provinces are substantially in accord on the
Oral Questions
kind of regime that should be applied to the east coast offshore. It was only Newfoundland that had failed to agree to the premise which had been found generally acceptable by the others.


Donald W. Munro: May I suggest there is a province called British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. May I remind the hon. gentleman that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that British Columbia has no offshore jurisdiction?


An hon. Member:: You have not talked to Premier Barrett.


AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture because of his wide knowledge of the food situation in this country. In view of the need for food to be distributed in various countries of the world now attacked by the scourge of starvation can the minister tell the House if action is being taken to establish a food bank along the lines of one my government endeavoured to establish in 1962 so that food will be made available to areas in need?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, at the FAO conference in Rome last year I think I clearly stated the government's position. There have been discussions about this and I think I would be right in saying an emergency session is going on, trying to make sure that cereal grains and other commodities, especially powdered milk, are distributed in areas of real need. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that a world distribution system for food must be developed somehow but how quickly it will be done depends on what happens at the world meeting on food to be held in Rome between November 5 and 15.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This food bank was to be a NATO venture. Canada made a large contribution and Norway joined but some of the other NATO countries refused to join. Are these other countries in NATO being consulted today and what is the attitude of the United States government to the establishment of a distribution system which, as the minister very properly says, is so absolutely necessary?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the reason this meeting is being held under the auspices of the United Nations in Rome is that all nations do not belong to the FAO but all the world powers will be participating in it. We feel that the leading nations must participate in this meeting to make it a success.

October 23, 1974
Oral Questions HOUSING


ALLEGATION CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION REQUIRES REPAYMENT OF GRANTS TO NON-PROFIT GROUPS
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs if he could clarify any misunderstanding that apparently exists between CMHC officials and certain Toronto non-profit housing groups with regard to federal grants given them by his predecessor?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to a report that the CMHC is requiring repayment of funds advanced for start-up grants for special co-operative programs. I believe that is the case and I am studying the report. There has been no change in the policy whatsoever. If start-up grants are used for capital purposes such as the purchase of land, certainly it would be a part of the purchase rather than a start-up grant, but there has been absolutely no change in this regard. I am happy for the opportunity to clarify that.


CONSULTATIONS ON PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister. I wonder if he would advise if any consultations are going on between his department and the Department of Veterans Affairs with a view to producing a housing program for veterans.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there are always consultations going on between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and myself. In specific terms, we are always considering programs that can be of benefit to veterans within CMHC.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Could the minister advise the House if, in line with the consultations taking place with his colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and housing, a new program for veterans' housing is going to be announced in the near future?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the remarks of my hon. colleague on that question. Studies are being carried out and if there is going to be an announcement I will be glad to make it in the House.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is really for the Minister of the Environment but in her absence perhaps I might address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following the question period last Friday the minister appeared on television saying that the equipment we have for controlling oil spills is so good that the United States is interested in using the same kind. Then the minister went on to say that the equipment involves an oil skimmer as well as peat moss. I should like to ask the minister whether this is the equipment she says is so sophisticated that the government of the United States is interested in it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to speak to her about that.


Benno Friesen: Will the government now table the contingency plans as well as an inventory of the equipment they would use in the event of a major oil spill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will give consideration to what can be tabled in this respect.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
/ UNIFORMS FOR WOMEN MEMBERS OF THE FORCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. May I first commend the Solicitor General and through him the RCMP on their decision to recruit women as full members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of recent reports and photographs indicating that the new uniform for women members will be either long dresses or short skirts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope there will be equality of service for the women members of the force, considering the special responsibilities they may have for such matters as patrol in some quite cold climates, particularly around Parliament Hill, on occasion of pursuit or regular investigation. Such a uniform might be impractical in this day and age. I ask the minister in all seriousness whether this decision was made in consultation with the new members of the force or whether there was a special women's committee struck in order that there might be an appropriate uniform for women in the RCMP.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in bringing women into the RCMP as full-time mem-

bers, an attempt was made to have their uniforms as close to the men's uniforms as possible. I think the uniforms the hon. member is referring to are the dress uniforms and not the work uniforms. Work uniforms have been approved for the women recruits which include slacks, coats and so on for heavy outdoor work. The uniforms which appeared in the press recently are the dress or the going out uniforms for ceremonial occasions. I can assure the hon. member the work uniforms include slacks and other heavy clothing. I also wish to say that in designing the uniform, we consulted with the women's group in the armed forces as well as consultants, Information Canada and other design groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have some clarification from the minister on this, although I must say that the photographs and newspaper story described the short skirt as the regular working uniform. As this information has been conveyed coast to coast and I would not want this to be a disincentive for other young women who may be interesed in enlisting in the RCMP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's sentiments about this matter may be very important, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to make these comments at this time when there are so many members who want to get on with the question period.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if I might just ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It arises from an answer given today to a question I placed on the order paper. It is to the effect that $37 million in LIP funds went to constituencies represented by Liberals and $22 million to constituencies represented by Conservatives last year. I wish to ask the minister why, when the number of seats in the last House were almost equal, Liberal constituencies received almost $15 million more than those of Conservative constituencies.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it was based on the worthiness of applications by the sponsors in the various areas of Canada, coupled with the degree of unemployment and the formula which I enunciated in this House on several occasions.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Will the minister assure the House there were no political considerations involved?


Robert Knight Andras: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wanted earlier to put a supplementary to the Solicitor General. I am now asking it as a distinct question.
This morning five bandits escaped from St. Vincent de Paul for the fourth time, the same five, including Richard Blass, who got away-


An hon. Member:: All Liberals!


David Réal Caouette: -I do not know if they are all Liberals, but Richard Blass is from the riding of Mercier in Montreal. This is what the hon. member has just told me.
Mr. Speaker, here is my question: Does the minister intend to order an inquiry at St.Vincent de Paul in order to find out exactly how those same five prisoners could escape four times? The necessary steps have not yet been taken to prevent a recurrence of such incidents. Is the minister in a position to tell us what action he intends to take in this regard?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that this morning five inmates escaped from the Laval temporary maximum penitentiary which is part of the old St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary. Of these five escapees, at least three had made an escape from this or another penitentiary in the past. This escape was carried out after a woman visitor to the penitentiary smuggled in some weapons. The men escaped by forcing their way out with the weapons. This matter is presently under investigation by the Montreal and Quebec police. The Commissioner of Penitentiaries is on the site investigating as well.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has made it clear that his government intends no action to disallow or refer to the Supreme Court of Canada Quebec's Bill 22, is it the intention of the Prime Minister or the government to bring before this House a resolution encouraging the other provinces of Canada to bring forward language bills stating that they, too, can be officially unilingual?
28305-421/!

October 23, 1974
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government would follow the suggestion of the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last Friday the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised some questions with regard to the Garrison dam project. I wish to ask a further question. In view of statements by Mr. Russell Peterson, chairman of the United States president's council on environmental quality, that a moratorium on all new construction of the Garrison irrigation project in North Dakota be halted and in view of statements by Representative Vanik that the Garrison project is a "monument to folly and bureaucratic inertia", will the Canadian government now renew its attempts in calling for a moratorium in order to stop the pollution of the Souris and Red Rivers in Manitoba?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the position that was taken by Mr. Peterson, as contained in the question put by the hon. member. We made our position very clear to the United States on the harmful effects this diversion would have and that position will continue to be taken with the American authorities.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question. Are there any negotiations going on at the present time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations. It is expected that further meetings will be held on this subject later this year in an effort to reach a satisfactory resolution of the problem from our point of view.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Has the minister received a submission from the Saskatchewan Railway Employees Association, whose headquarters are in Biggar, Saskatchewan, requesting his intervention with a view to postponing the implementation by the railway companies of the compulsory check-off of union dues, to be initiated at the end of this month, until a countrywide referendum of railway employees can be held, and if so would the minister advise the House of his intentions in this regard?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am not
aware of having received the submission in question. I will check, and get in touch with the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: In view of the importance of the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert, might I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister? Would he seriously consider following the precedent of 1961 and ask the Prime Minister to name at least two cabinet ministers and at least two federal members of parliament representing both language groups to make the most effective political representation in favour of the case for a world food bank at the food conference being held in Rome next month?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is the
intention of the government that at least two cabinet ministers should attend the World Food Conference in Rome at which this proposal will be put forward. I am sure they will represent Canada very well, but I will take under consideration the suggestion that they might be supported by other members. This will be a very large delegation and I think it will be thoroughly representative of Canada. It may even include representatives from nongovernment organizations who will wish to go to support this particular project and others.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Basing my supplementary question on experience in the past, I hope the Acting Prime Minister will make the most fervent representations to the Prime Minister that in no circumstances should there be any recall of any of the ministers during the two weeks.



FINANCE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Transport but I notice he is not present. I hope he will be here later this day, because many hon. members are looking for him. I will direct one of my questions to the Minister of Finance. Since the railway rate freeze has now been in force for a little over a year, affecting about 22 per cent of rail freight traffic, can the minister tell us whether or not compensation has been sought by, and paid to, the railroads for alleged losses caused by the freezing of freight rates?


John Napier Turner: I think that question ought more properly to be directed to the Minister of Transport when he is here later in the day.
October 23, 1974


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Does the Minister of Finance have no idea, then, of what amounts are being paid out?


John Napier Turner: I do. I simply think the Minister of Transport is the appropriate minister to answer the question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Last summer, there was a very unfortunate accident at the Valcartier Canadian Forces Base, which caused the death of two young cadets. The military authorities launched an inquiry on the matter. I should like to know if the minister intends to make public the report he received following the inquiry by the forces authorities?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: A board of inquiry has completed its investigation into the most regretable accident at Val Cartier last summer. A press release was issued today following the issue of the report of that inquiry. It could really be looked upon as an interim report; the full report cannot be released at least until after the many recommendations made by the board have been studied.



MANPOWER


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower related to a serious revelation by the Department of Labour which indicates there are some 40,000 jobs vacant in the province of Alberta affecting the forest industry and construction-as a matter of fact the department calls for a 20 per cent increase of permits for migrants so that they might take up these jobs. Can the minister tell us what immediate steps his department is prepared to take to ensure that those seeking work find jobs, particularly as this relates to the serious situation in Alberta?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have had several consultations with members of the government of Alberta, most recently in Jasper with Dr. Hohal, the minister of manpower and labour there. We found ourselves in complete agreement that the best method of operating would be to search locally for people to fill these jobs. I might say that in the province of Alberta, particularly, there are a large number of native people who I think should be given the opportunity of filling these jobs even if this were to involve intensive training. I believe the native people of
Oral Questions
Alberta would support this point of view. Should it not be possible to fill the jobs in this way we will place them on the national and regional networks; only after this are we prepared to look abroad for recruitment of immigrants or short-term seasonal workers. Dr. Hohal has expressed his full agreement with this approach. We are working in conjunction with industry there to try to satisfy the demand.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I thank the minister for his answer, but in the light of the continuing concern about the relationship between high job vacancy rates, high unemployment insurance benefits and high unemployment can the minister tell us whether he has undertaken a study in this field, and if so, how soon the results of that study will be revealed?


Robert Knight Andras: We have undertaken several specific studies in co-operation with specific industries including the Forest Products Association of British Columbia, the logging industry, the mining industry and others. We find that the existence of unemployment insurance benefits at the present level very rarely constitutes the real inhibition in matching workers with jobs. There are problems related to vocational skills, working conditions, wages and so forth; usually, when we have been able to consult with employers we have succeeded in reaching a meeting of minds which involves some of them tidying up their acts, as it were, though there are other policies which need to be addressed to this situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister now seems to be saying, in a backhanded way, that there is no need to bring amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Robert Knight Andras: That is not what the minister said, and I think the hon. member knows it full well.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: May I direct a related question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? In the light of the statement made by the hon. gentleman yesterday, has he instructed immigration officers in our offices overseas that there exists a serious shortage of labour in western and northern Canada and have these officers been instructed to inform immigrants of these job vacancies?


Robert Knight Andras: This has been an on-going exercise. We have been making these officers abroad acquainted with the labour market both on the basis of occupational demand information and more recent techniques for designating, in consultation with the provinces, occupations which are in high demand in given regions. This practice will be continued.
Oral Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
October 23, 1974

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: In the
light of this report that there are 40,000 job openings in Alberta, will the minister now give consideration to closing the supplementary unemployment insurance office in Edmonton-the second office located in the riding of Edmonton-Strathcona? It is not needed because of the declining volume of applicants and its closing would save taxpayers more than half a million dollars a year?


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. member did write to me about this matter. I am looking into it and I appreciate the information he has given me. If the hon. member's impression is validated by our own analysis we shall not fail to seize the opportunity to reduce the service.



BACTERIAL LEVELS AT WHICH GROUND BEEF UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very intense anxiety of many housewives and others using ground beef, which anxiety has been caused by the report of finding a high level count of bacteria in ground meat which could cause severe illness and morbidity, and since this has been reported previously on other occasions, I should like to ask the minister whether there are any predetermined levels of bacterial counts that are used as a guideline, or any findings of bacterial types that would cause meat to be labelled as unfit for human consumption?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 

ALLEGED LACK OF INSPECTORS TO ENFORCE PROVISIONS OF FOOD AND DRUG ACT-REQUEST FOR INCREASED PENALTIES FOR OFFENDERS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the startling relevation made by the minister outside the House yester-

day that he did not have enough inspectors adequately to enforce the provisions of the Food and Drug Act at the retail food level, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the regulations of the Food and Drug Act are in fact being enforced at the retail food level so as to ensure protection for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Once more, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's imagination is carrying him away. What I said was that there was no way we could have inspectors inspecting each and every store across the whole country every single day. You would need an inspector for every store, and in view of the position of the hon. member's party vis-a-vis the growth of the public service I do not expect he would argue we should have an inspector for every store. That is what I said. On the other hand, my departmental officials are doing everything they can to carry out checks on everything having to do with the proper and satisfactory handling of meat in this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the admission that there are not enough inspectors to carry out or enforce the regulations at the retail level, may I ask the minister whether he will now carry out the recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board and give greater publicity and stiffer penalties to people who break the law, as one means of ensuring that Canadians will be protected against the sale of unhygenic beef?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once more I will not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question. Indeed, we have been working on the implementation of several of the recommendations put forward by the Food Prices Review Board last June, and the best evidence of this is the opening in one week's time in Halifax of another food monitoring laboratory of the health protection branch of my department, which will be specializing in the analysis of meat and food products sold in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Simcoe North rising on a point of order?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he believes, in view of all that has gone on here, and if all these packages are to be labelled, that they should carry a label saying they must be well cooked?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be very pleased to look into this matter and raise it with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister clarify whether the new immigration regulations he announced in
October 23, 1974

the House yesterday will adversely affect nominated relative applicants from the People's Republic of China?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the hon. member's question and the opportunity to clarify.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Knight Andras: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the movement from the People's Republic of China does include nominated relatives as well as sponsored. All applications in hand prior to yesterday will be treated, as I indicated in my statement, without application of the changes made in the new regulations. The nominated applications from yesterday forward will be treated in the way applicable to all other source countries.
I might add that as of October 22 the number of both sponsored and nominated applications from the People's Republic of China totalled 6,551. None of these applications will be affected by the new regulations, though of course not all the nominated applications will be approved, as would be the case with any other request.



SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE OF WHEAT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the present difference between the initial price that the farmer gets for a bushel of wheat and the Wheat Board's export price is well over $3, and in view of the fact that most farmers want a higher initial price, is the minister giving any consideration to asking the Wheat Board to increase the initial price to farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of increasing initial prices is under review. It is not ordinarily our policy to make these changes haphazardly or from month to month to reflect any current situation. However, we will look again at the situation this year, as we did last year, and determine whether and when it is appropriate to make a move.
The most important thing in my mind is for farmers to understand that it is the total return that they receive from the Wheat Board that is important and relevant to them, and any higher initial price will still not convey the full value of their grain to them. Then they have to watch the other information that the Wheat Board is providing, namely the price at which the Wheat Board is selling their grain.
Oral Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the Unemployment Insurance Act will be amended shortly, particularly with regard to sickness benefits, can the minister assure the House that those amendments will cover the regulations which entitle to sickness benefits, so that male recipients will no longer be disqualified by officials as were some in my riding this week when they received the following notice:
Dear Sir,
You are not eligible to sickness benefits because your pregnancy period did not occur during your initial period.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's representations. When amendments to the act are introduced, full recognition and consideration will be given to his suggestion.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Robert Knight Andras: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and wearing another hat as Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, might I reply to a question put by the hon. member for South Shore yesterday regarding Microsystems International. I note he has been rising to catch your attention.
I am informed that the company has neither collapsed nor received funds in the amount of $48 million. The actual sums are $30.4 million by way of grant repayable out of profits, and a loan of $6.7 million was approved in 1969, in full recognition that this was a high risk venture. There has been a softening in markets around the world for microelectronic products, and this has adversely affected a number of producers, including this company. We hope that in the long term these markets will recover. In the meantime, Microsystems International Limited has considerable excess capacity, and in order to utilize it economically Northern Electric is offering to absorb existing Microsystems facilities into its own operations. Incidentally, Northern Electric has invested significantly more in this enterprise than has the government.

October 23, 1974
Oral Questions



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the negotiations currently being carried on in Europe relating to trade with France and the EEC, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether those negotiations negate or by-pass the usual process of trade negotiations with or under GATT?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, will these negotiations in any way prejudice future negotiations under GATT?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question of great importance and seriousness in eastern Ontario to the Minister of Agriculture. This matter has been raised to some extent in the House before, and concerns brucellosis which is ravaging dairying herds through eastern Ontario including 86 herds which have been quarantined in Carleton County alone, 21 in Leeds and more in other counties. Can the minister guarantee this House that compensation payments made for the loss of these cattle will be made to the farmers within a period of no longer than 45 days after the animals have been sent to slaughter rather than the farmers having to attempt to subsist for a period of three, four or five months as a result of the compensation fund having gone bankrupt?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with part of what the hon. member says in respect of some cases that we have checked out following reports by hon. members, but unless there is some very unusual circumstance the farmers should be paid within three or four weeks. I might add that there is an obligation on the person who has had the misfortune of having his herd condemned because our inspectors demand proper cleanup and so on. I agree that this is not always the case. The hon. member referred to the number of herds affected in Carleton County. This is certainly tragic, but I would point out that it represents approximately 6 per cent of the herds in that county. I believe the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham made a request the other day for a report which I can give if he still wants it. I should just like to caution hon. members about suggesting that this infection is moving at great speed across the province of Ontario. That is not the case according to the reports I have from the Director of Animal Husbandry on health of animals in Canada. This is an important industry, and animal health in our nation is still the best in the world.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the minister's speech but he did not in any way come close to answering my question. Can he guarantee the House that these farmers will receive compensation within 45 days of the cattle being slaughtered?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if all procedures are carried out as they are supposed to be the farmers can get their payments in three or four weeks. I cannot guarantee that the farmers will carry out the required cleanup within 45 days, but it would have to be done in much less than that in order that the cheques can be properly made out and sent.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is the position of the federal government that restoration of passenger train service in southwestern Ontario is now a dead issue?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is still a subject of study with the government of Ontario.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the minister authorized Diane Waller of his office to write a letter in which she indicated it would be in the public interest that these services not be restored and the federal government had a responsibility to encourage bus service instead for many of these areas?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last spring in answer to a question posed by the hon. member for York-Sunbury the Minister of National Defence stated that the land force policy review study would be completed in the near future. Will he inform us whether he has read the study, if he concurs with its findings and if he will table it?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the land force policy review study has been completed and is now being considered by me and senior personnel of the Department of National Defence.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider making the study available to selected members of the opposition on a confidential basis?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a question I have directed to the Minister of Transport on a number of occasions. He promised to answer last week, and since he has not been here earlier this week I wonder whether he might be given the opportunity to answer this question regarding the report on the investigation into the Frobisher Bay accident?



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, presented to the House, Thursday, October 3, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, presented to the House, Thursday, October 3, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March, 1975, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: It is my understanding that the committee wishes to proceed directly to consideration of Schedule A in the bill and to begin consideration of the portion of the schedule touching on the Treasury Board which will be found at pages 28 and 29. At this point I wonder whether it would not be more procedurally in order to stand the title, the preamble and clauses 1 to 6 of the bill. If hon. members agree, we will stand these clauses and return to them at a later stage. Is it agreed that we stand the title, the preamble and clauses 1 to 6 of the bill and go directly to Schedule A for the consideration of the Treasury Board estimates?
Estimates


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Title stands.
Preamble stands.
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive stand.


Gérald Laniel: I wish to inform hon. members we will now proceed to the study of the provisions of the schedule dealing with the Treasury Board which may be found at the bottom of page 28 and on page 29 of the bill.
On Schedule A-Treasury Board.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the appropriation bill before us relates to the main estimates and the first supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year.
As most hon. members will recall, I am sure, the main estimates were presented to the last Parliament on February 28 and shortly before the beginning of the current fiscal year Parliament voted interim supply to be used for the public service until the end of June.
In May, Parliament was dissolved and general elections were called. Since interim supply ran out at the beginning of summer, the government has financed itself through a series of special warrants, each covering approximately one month. Section 23 of the Financial Administration Act provides that such warrants can be issued to get the funds needed when Parliament is not sitting. The last of these warrants which was prepared in September should be barely enough to cover expenditures for October.
Almost all the expenditures incurred between the months of June and October were already in the main estimates, so that almost all the warrants were, so to speak, an advance on the estimates, the few new items are provided for in the supplementary estimates. In fact, except for two votes, the whole supplementary estimates include items that were covered by the special warrants, but not the main estimates.
The first of these two items deals with the payment of compensation on imports of oil and oil products (Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, vote 52a, $330 million) which will be handled by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. It covers the months of November and December. Before then, I hope that Parliament will have adopted further legislation to provide for these payments until the end of the fiscal year.
The second deals with payments provided for in the program for the double price of wheat (Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, credit 41a, $79,300,000), in order to subsidize the price of wheat for Canadian consumers between the month of September 1973 and July 1974. The bill concerning the other six years of this 7-year program has reached the second reading stage in the House.
The appropriation bill we are discussing today would grant the total credits of the main estimates and the supplementary estimates for the rest of the fiscal year.
To give the usual assurances, Mr. Chairman, I must mention that this bill is along the same lines as those of years past and does not contain any new authority to borrow.

October 23, 1974
Estimates

I would like to summarize very briefly what the estimates contain. If we take main estimates of $22 billion, supplementary estimates of $890 million, and for completeness the forecast of payment for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement of $3.4 billion, we have, for total budgetary estimates to date, a figure of almost $26.3 billion.
To avoid any confusion I want to remind hon. members that the figure my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will use when talking about total government outlays at the time of the budget will differ from the figures I have available now. There is always a net lapse or shortfall of a few hundred million between estimates and actual expenditures reflecting such things as delays in filling vacant positions and delays in construction. In addition, the Minister of Finance will provide in his figures for a contingency to cover expenditure requirements that may yet arise.
In any case, to talk in broad terms, an amount of about $15 billion of the $26 billion presented to date in what are called budgetary expenditures is devoted to transfer payments. That is 57 per cent. The largest of these transfer payments are: old age security and the guaranteed income supplement; family allowance payments; unconditional fiscal transfers to the provinces; the conditional or special purpose transfers to the provinces to cover half the costs for hospital care, medical care, and the Canada Assistance Plan; veterans' pensions and allowances; the government's share of the cost of unemployment insurance payments; grants to the less developed countries; and the subsidies recently introduced to ease the impact at the consumer level of price pressure on milk, bread, and petroleum products.
Most of these, accounting for about $10 billion, are measures successive Liberal governments have taken to give Canada systems of social security worthy of a modern, relatively wealthy state.
Other redistribution measures designed to promote equality of treatment for our citizens, such as fiscal transfer payments to the provinces and support for university education, call for expenditures approaching another $3 billion. Almost all the foregoing are transfer payments governed by statute, and some are covered by five-year agreements with the provinces. Most of those who criticize government expenditures are very unhelpful as to what specifically might be done to reduce them. But even if we were to have a government so unenlightened as to wish to tear down these key supports of our national life, years might well elapse before the destruction would be carried out.
In practice then, the great bulk of the expenditures of the federal government must be taken as given. Only at the margin is there room to manoeuvre so as to tune the long term pattern of expenditures which has been put in place over a decade, and more so as to respond to new demands or to try to affect the movement of the economy.
The rest, about $11 billion or 43 per cent, covers the servicing of the public debt, about $3 billion; the subsidization of Crown corporations, about three quarters of a

billion dollars; and the remainder, the operating and capital costs of departments.
I might note that an important reason for the growth in the size of the public debt is the money borrowed to meet non budgetary requirements which take the form of investment in Crown corporations-CMHC, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Export Development Corporation, and so on-Crown corporations being special instruments in the furthering of the social, economic and other policies.
About one third of the operating costs of the government for 1974-75 are taken up in the defence budget, and most of the rest in programs of service to the public, such as the Post Office and transport services, or in the essential functions of government as government, such as tax collection and the RCMP.
It is important to recognize, though it seems easy for some critics to forget, that the federal government provides and must pay for a wide range of basic services for the economy-airports, air traffic control, the mails, food and drug inspection, federal police-the list could go on a long time. These services become more vital and more expensive as society grows, and in all realism they should be looked upon as being only slightly more optional than the redistribution measures established by statute to which I previously referred.

So there, Mr. Chairman, you have in short an idea of the situation before the House at the present time. As the hon. members will realize, more than half the federal budget is provided under acts passed by the House and over which we have practically no control, unless of course the House wishes to introduce new bills. We are now trying to check the level of government expenditures as much as possible. Over the last three months, we have given instructions to all departments to the effect that they must operate within the limits of the estimates tabled in the House today.
A few supplementary expenditures now before the House are the result of measures carried by the government and requested by the House of Commons, such as the one-price oil policy and the one-price wheat policy for Canadian consumers. I hope hon. members will understand that if they want this governmet to be able to control the growth in government expenditures, they cannot at the same time ask us to make further expenditures.
Therefore, I urge hon. members in the next three days to meditate on this aspect of the issue. I will be glad to answer questions from hon. members. The other ministers referred to with respect to the order introduced in the House for the debate on the current estimates and the supplementary estimates will be present to answer questions which I hope will be useful to hon. members and Canadians in general so it will be realized that federal government activities are quite important. The larger part of government expenditures, 57 per cent, are set out in legislation voted by hon. members. It would probably be quite improper, for example, for the President of the Treasury Board to propose cuts in old age security pensions, family allowances or other programs of this type.
October 23, 1974

That is why we are here today, to explain the estimates and give the necessary information to hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the minister on his able presentation of the estimates and wish him well in the very difficult task which lies ahead of him. I can only assume that he took it over because he was a refugee from his last job, and anything was a good escape hatch.
In my opinion this bill is wrongly called an appropriation bill. I suggest it could better be named the misappropriation bill because it is nothing but the legalization of the $25 billion rip-off of the Canadian taxpayer by the Trudeau government.
To take money from people with their consent and, after adequate opportunity, to examine the purpose and scrutinize the detail, are one thing, but the ritualistic tribal dance which we call approving estimates is merely a farce, a slapstick comedy. Any suggestion that the existing rules and regulations permit members of parliament to engage in a meaningful check on the gigantic spending program of the government is absolute nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Author?


Gerald William Baldwin: The traditional right to withhold supply until all grievances have been dealt with and parliament is satisfied with the bona fide of proposed expenditures is gone. It has been swept away by an arrogant executive.
As we pass through the twilight of the bureaucratic dominated welfare state to the darkness that lies beyond, we find it quite impossible as members of parliament to carry out our rights and duties of ensuring that money, extracted as taxes from the people of Canada, is properly spent.
There are many reasons for this but time permits me to deal with just a few in a limited form. First there is the sheer size of the public accounts and of the blue book of estimates, not only the number of votes of money but the gobbledygook language in which they are couched. Even the present Minister of Public Works, for many years the President of the Treasury Board, was moved to say when appearing before a Senate finance committee last year that: "we are now getting to the point where the book is so thick and has so much in it that it almost appals people ..." and again: "The same problem with the public accounts which, over the years, have grown and grown . . . and now we have reached the stage where it is almost incomprehensible". That is what the minister said. It is one of the few really accurate statements he has made for some time.
An increasing amount of the estimates is made up of statutory items, that is to say, expenditures fixed by previous acts of parliament, and for all practical purposes beyond the reach of subsequent parliaments.
Another reason is the use of schemes such as dollar votes, legislative items, making commitments for a number of years ahead. Last year there was an item of $350 million in supplementary estimates for a public works program. It should have been in statute form and it was cnallenged in the other place, but it was passed
Estimates
because the minister produced an instant opinion from the Department of Justice which ran quite contrary to a Treasury Board manual which has been in existence for many years. Now that $350 million has disappeared into the cavernous belly of bureaucracy and probably will never be heard of again.
Another reason is the fact that the present Standing Orders and the previous decisions of Mr. Speaker make it almost impossible for the House to reduce the amount of any vote. Because of the limited amount of time and opportunity in special committees of the House for examining estimates and the method in past years of conducting the proceedings-most of these committees have been operating as kangaroo courts-members are inhibited in their tasks.
We have been left with a sort of comic opera atmosphere of contempt and disregard for the hard pressed taxpayer, and this is compounded when we consider the enormous acceleration of government expenditures over the last few years.
It is a fact the policy of expanding the monetary supply to accommodate these huge expenditures has been one of the principal domestic factors in the inflation which continues to ravage the average Canadian.
All of this would be bad enough if there were efficiency in the management of our accounts-the very fact that we are engaging in this exercise in the next few days is proof that this is not the case-and if in the larger context the Canadian government were, in fact, doing those things which ought to be done for the benefit of the people of Canada.
It was all very well when we were in an era of rising productivity, the rate of which did not lag too far behind the national accounts. But now, finally, the financial facts of life have caught up with the government which stands helpless and moribund, with no plan save only that of the modern king Canute, the Postmaster General, who says, "Don't talk about inflation and it will go away".
So here we are with expenses out of control; a governe-ment so big, so complex, that it is out of control, and this parliament is losing its right to challenge. The Auditor General's reports over the last few years pointed out over and over again that in fact we had lost the right to check properly and to restrain the government over public expenditures. I suppose we all have to bear some blame. Certainly members of parliament were delinquent in giving up the safeguards they surrendered. We are all responsible. None of us voted against those proposals.
The media have had very little to say about it. I noticed today that when the minister rose to speak about the estimates there was a general exodus of those who should be interested. I wonder if the situation will ever have enough political sex appeal to capture public attention. Certainly something is wrong but the public does not know' what.
There is another aspect which goes hand in hand with the question of control of spending. That is the right of the public, parliament and the media to receive adequate information from the government. I questioned the Prime

Estimates
Minister on this a few days ago and he gave me the usual slick, glib reply that the ground rules brought in by the former government House leader, which to some extent he said were imported from Sweden, these are quite ineffective. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. They have had no material effect on increasing the flow of information to members.
I had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister of Sweden, and asked him about what he had seen in this House and what is going on in Sweden. Out of politeness toward a distinguished visitor I will not pass on his comments, but he pointed out that in Sweden government information is within the full range of inspection of the media and the public. He said that a few days before he left three newspaper reporters went through his files for information. When will we get that sort of thing in this House, Mr. Speaker?


John Mercer Reid: When can we go through your files?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. member to see my files with all the complaints about what the government is doing to the people of Canada.
When the Prime Minister talked about Sweden he should know what the situation is there compared with Canada. We are away back in medieval days. Let us be honest, realistic, practical. Time has run out on us, and we are reaching the end of the road as far as being able to mount an effective parliamentary challenge to government spending in this House. We are a parliament which has lost its teeth, and we are being edged into a half baked presidential system without any of the safeguards which should be attached.
I am rather interested in the present desire of the Prime Minister to go to the British practice for some improvements. I would refer him to a book "The Passing of Parliament" by Professor G. W. Keeton. At page 33, the author comments:
Today, in Great Britain ... Transition would be easy, swift, and it could be accomplished with complete legality. Already so many steps have been taken in this direction ... Today, virtually our only remaining constitutional safeguard is the habit of tolerance and the existence of a powerful political opposition-
No wonder the Prime Minister is anxious to involve himself in the British practice.
What are the things that we need? We need the right to bring certain estimates, at the option of the opposition, into this House for full study in a revived committee of supply, with ample opportunity to question ministers. This is in addition to the continuation of standing committee examination. The estimates must be put in a form which is intelligible. We need to accelerate the examination of public accounts, and must have the right to have some examination in the House of public accounts committee reports. After all, when any animal makes a mess it should have its nose rubbed in it occasionally, and this is what should happen to the government.
The cabinet and bureaucrats must be compelled, under severe sanctions, to provide information requested. We must have the right to reduce the items of estimates, and all of this not just to prop up the prestige or enhance the dignity of the House but simply to do our job so that we can stand at the bridge and say to the government, "Your

estimates shall not pass until you have dealt with the grievances and the right to know of the people." Will we get it? I do not know. Certainly the bureaucracy will not voluntarily give up its authority, and the cabinet is made up mainly of recycled bureaucrats.
Today I fear there is not much hope that the House as a whole will go along with my suggestion because the government has a majority. Its supporters are quite satisfied with the scheme of things and most of them look ahead to the day when they, too, may have their chance to move up to the throne and become ministers and experience the great thrill of throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money.
This leaves the opposition, or those of the opposition who will dig in and fight, and perhaps some in the media who may also perceive the dangers which threaten. Will that be enough to stimulate public outcry for changes? There is nothing certain about it, but we have to try because it is our duty, because there is not much time left, and because if there is any further increase in executive power the Prime Minister's office and the cabinet will shortly become, in legal form, what it is now in substance, a collective autocracy, with no restraints between elections.
The question I often ask myself, and I am sure others do also, is this: do people really want a continuation of the parliamentary democratic system or are they content with the executive dictatorship we have been building in Canada over the last eight or ten years? On balance I am convinced the great majority of people have a sound instinct, realize what is best for them and prefer the democratic structure which would permit them, through their representatives, to challenge the juggernaut of government.
So it is our duty to seek improvement, to say to the government which probably will not listen, and to the people who may, that this House, this parliament, must be equipped with the means and the tools to carry out its responsibilities. Society to live, to survive, to progress must change, conform and adopt.
The choice we face is either to secure these changes by the proper interrelationship of parliament and government so that from time to time we reach a consensus to bring the greatest good for the greatest number-a result which has to be judged by the needs of the people and not the wishes of the executive-or else we will have to cope with the painful alternative of explosive violence which we see around us. Mr. Chairman, the choice is for us in this parliament today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in the inter-party discussions which we had, we arranged for a certain number of departments to be given our attention during these three days. It is correct that the estimates of the Treasury Board were to be first on the list so that we could have a parliamentary discussion on government spending in general, and on the way in which parliament handles the government's estimates.
The hon. member for Peace River has conformed to that arrangement. I wish to make a few comments on what he
October 23, 1974

has said and on the things that have been designated for this discussion. I think it is fair to say we do not intend to stay very long on this subject. Rather, we welcome this opportunity afforded to us in these three days to get at the substance of the estimates of several departments. Accordingly, before long we will be into the estimates of the Department of Transport.
However, the remarks of my good friend from Peace River prompt me to make a few comments I had not planned to make. If I may be so presumptuous, I shall characterize his speech as being divided into two main parts. On the one hand, he levelled an attack at government spending generally. In fact, he called the estimates a $25 billion rip-off of the Canadian people. On the other hand, he criticized the methods by which we allegedly scrutinize the estimates or study the spending program of the government. One of my reasons for separating his speech into those two parts is that I do not want to confuse them. I want to speak about them separately.
With regard to government spending generally, I know that it is a favourite indoor sport to attack governments for expenditures, and to treat governments as though they are highwaymen holding up the Canadian people for the benefit of those who happen to sit on the treasury benches.
Let me say that I am terribly aware, and I have been around here long enough to have that awareness fully developed, of wasteful expenditure on the part of the government. I am frequently annoyed at the high salaries that are paid in certain areas. I am critical, as are all my colleagues, of government priorities in spending. Far too often unimportant things get the money that should be going into things that would make life better for human beings as individuals.
Having said that, let me deny the assertion that taxing and spending of the people's money is somehow a rip-off by highway robbers.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In order to make the hon. member's task easier and let him devote his time to that area which I think is more subject to attack, may I say I did not intend to create the impression that there was a challenge against all government spending. I was going back to my days in law when theft was defined as taking without colour of right. I was challenging the government for taking money without being subject to the usual precautions, scrutiny and safeguards which we ought to have. I ask the hon. member to take that as my understanding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to let the hon. member put that gloss on what he said if he wishes to do so. However, the fact is he did say this is not properly called an appropriation of funds but a misappropriation. He applied that to the whole book. He said it was a $25 billion rip-off of the Canadian people. I want to make the proposition that this is an attack on government itself. It is an attack on civilization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends do not seem to realize that civilization does not consist of a
Estimates
lot of individuals living in a dog eat dog fashion. Civilization consists of an organized society in which we decide, in an organized way, how we are going to distribute the wealth that we produce. If we did not have government, if we were an unorganized conglomeration with each of us going his own way, poverty and suffering in this country would be worse than they are at present. Inequality would be far greater.
By having government, which is an organization of society, we see to it that at least a portion of the wealth we produce-and I mean real wealth, goods and services-is distributed among the people of the community as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my friends to my right are hurt, they can say so. They can use the rest of these three days to bring out those antediluvian ideas that they want to put forward.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the major portion of the money-not just the 57 per cent, but the money spent on highways, defence, postal services, health and all the rest of it-that is collected by governments at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal, then recycled and spent, is a process of society deciding how our wealth is going to be distributed, and trying to do it on the basis of some sort of fairness and equality for all our people.
I insist that my friends to the right cannot stand up and call for massive reductions in government expenditures unless they say where those reductions are to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are they going to reduce the money spent on old age pensions? For my part, I want to see a lot more spent on old age pensions, family allowances, housing, health and all those services that will make life better for the Canadian people. I want to see less money spent on a lot of public buildings that are not necessary. I want to see a lot less money spent on high salaries. I do not want any more money wasted on us. I want the money we collect and recycle through the process of government to get through to the people.
I submit that this attack on government spending which we get from my friends to the right all the time is completely out of touch with the basic philosophy and basic fact of civilization. I once read an article, I forget where, which was addressed to Governor Reagan of California. The article said that Governor Reagan must be told that civilization costs money.
If we are going to have a civilized Canada in which people have health services, housing, pensions and an organized community which they can count on having some dependability, it is going to cost money. That is what government is all about, and that is true at the local municipal level, at the provincial level and at the federal level.

October 23, 1974
Estimates
People sometimes take the attitude that taxes are some sort of a fine, penalty, highway robbery or, to use the hon. member's word, misappropriation. I submit they are very often collected unfairly. A lot of tax is collected for wasteful expenditures and things that ought not to have priority-


An hon. Member:: Like the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, like the Senate. Get that on the record. The basic fact is that we are, in this collective way, paying for services. When we pay taxes we are not paying a fine to the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board or anyone else over there. We are paying for the cost of services that government provides.
In the context of that, I claim full right to be critical of the way these moneys are spent. I claim full right to be critical of high salaries for top senior civil servants, members of parliament, and of other ways moneys are spent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Speak of Barrett in B.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just as critical of any government, even if of my party's persuasion, that does it. I am especially critical of the failure to make substantial increases in the basic old age pensions, to spend more money on housing, or to provide other services that our people so sorely need. I believe in civilization. I believe in Canada being a modern, humane civilization. But I accept the fact that this will cost money, and the big corporations, the ones that are getting 60 per cent or 80 per cent increase in profits every year, aren't going to do it.
The money can be collected and used to provide for a decent civilization only if we do it through the instrument of government. I think we could have a much better government than the one we see opposite, but the fact remains that if we are to have civilization we need a government which is prepared to levy taxes and then to use those taxes on the basis of proper priorities to create a decent, humane society for all our people. So I urge that we not waste time on this nonsense of picking up this book of $25 billion dollars worth of estimates for the year and saying that it is a misappropriation act.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is just a rip-off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is more responsible than that. I know, because he is my friend and I like him. He could make a much better contribution to the debate than that. Don't worry about this talk about a minority parliament as opposed to a majority parliament. Whatever the situation, we have the right to try to make parliament work, and we want to see it work for the best kind of civilization we can have.


An hon. Member:: He is trying for a Senate seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that remark has gone on the record, the member who made it knows there is one member here who would absolutely refuse to
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
go to the other place and it is this member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I have more sympathy with the hon. member for Peace River when he is talking about the other subject he dealt with, the question whether or not in parliament we give adequate scrutiny to the estimates. I do not believe we do. However, I still feel it is not much help for one side to damn the other because we haven't got a proper system. I believe we should put our collective minds together and try to work out a better system of handling the estimates, instead of just letting the opposition berate the government because we don't have it.
I have been around here for a while. I happened to come when the House of Commons was still handling estimates the way they were handled in the year one, and even though that was in wartime when we had a huge appropriation bill, it worked. We did every estimate of the federal government on the floor of this chamber in committee of supply, and of all the systems in my experience I think it was the best. The reason it had to go was because of the sheer explosion of expenditure. At the beginning of World War II the budget amounted to about half a billion dollars. In the first years after the war it got up to one or two billion dollars. I remember those terrible budgets which the father of the hon. member for Mississauga brought in-four or five billion dollars. Now it is $25 billion dollars. And with all the different things we spend money on, all the different things parliament is involved in, it was just impossible to continue the system we had down into the forties and fifties.
I was also here in the days when we did estimates on the floor of the House but had a limited number of days for them. That was just about as bad. In fact, it was worse. We got the estimates passed, but all the ministers had to do was just to sit them out. They knew that with the passage of time their estimates would get through. So we agreed, all of us in all parties, to try a new system of referring the estimates to committee. Then we bring them back to the House and normally we don't have this kind of debate- we just vote on them. I don't think it is working as it should.
I don't suggest we go back to the other system because there aren't enough days in which to do it, but I still think there is merit in the idea that at least some departments of the government-and here I am with the hon. member for Peace River, my good friend, 100 per cent-namely, the departments the opposition chooses, every year should be brought on the floor of the House and discussed without time limit.
I would rather have two or three departments in a year without time limit, than have 20 departments with two or three days each. The moment one places a time limit on estimates all the minister in charge of a department has to do is to sit there and listen to the speeches knowing that when the time comes the vote takes place and, with a majority government, his estimates will go through.
Therefore, I argue we should improve upon the present system, let most of the estimates go to committees as they now do, and let the members of those committees make the searching inquiries they talk about. But I think the opposition should have the right to say that we want these departments, A, B and C, or X, Y and Z, back here on the
October 23, 1974

floor. The opposition should pick them, they should come back to the House of Commons, and they should be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons without time limit. Unless something like this is done the so-called studies we make are not studies at all.
In this sense I do not blame the hon. member for Peace River for feeling we are just a rubber stamp approving something which has already been done. The size of that book, of course is frightening. It is at least four times the size of the book of estimates we had when I first came here, and it gives about one-quarter of the information. Surely some improvement can be made in his area in improving the handling of the estimates. I think what should be done is for all of us to put our ideas into the pot to see whether we can come up with some better way. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make rather brief remarks after those made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien).
Since this is the first time we deal with a matter involving him, I would like first of all to congratulate him for his appointment as President of the Treasury Board. With his long cabinet experience and that spirit of his, I think he will be able to make a useful contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to assure him of our full cooperation in the consideration of bills introduced by him but, of course, as long as they are acceptable to us.
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) was interviewed on Lise Payette's television program on the CBC, in Montreal, he said that his role was to limit, control and supervise the estimates of each department. He gave the impression that he coordinated the activities of departments and that the Treasury Board accepted to vote credits at the request of the deparment and established priorities.
Indeed, in the statement about the purpose of his department contained in the main estimates, it is said that the minister is responsible for the selection of programs and projects that will achieve the objectives of the government in the most effective manner and in accordance with its priorities.
Mr. Chairman, if I am not mistaken, and I would like to restrict my comments to this point, the minister is responsible not only for accepting a list of priorities established by the Cabinet, but also for applying it and coordinating it with the activities of other departments.
Mr. Chairman, if this is true, I believe that the minister will have much to do to modernize this department. His role will be to ensure that there will be no double funding to meet the same objectives and that there is no conflict between two programs, since, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in the same spirit, it would be dishonest to blame the government for spending too much while requesting more money for other programs. But this does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that we should waste public funds in some areas because we allow double investments or conflicts between programs.
I would like to clarify this point by giving a specific example: Of course, these problems do not occur at the
Estimates
level of government leadership, but when the laws are applied in practice, Mr. Chairman, many of the criticisms made by our fellow citizens in this area are quite justified. The administration of the laws and the various programs cost a lot of money and do not meet the desired objectives. All public servants in general, except of course those whose working contract was being negotiated at the time, received $500 as a sort of bonus. Even the employees of Crown corporations have received this bonus. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the House of Commons staff did not get it.
Here is what I am driving at. When we get in touch with the responsible people in the manpower mobility program, we are told that House of Commons employees, being members of the civil service are not entitled to the manpower mobility allowance. On the other hand, House of Commons employees who request equal treatment with the civil service are told by Treasury Board or I don't know who that they are not entitled to it because they are not members of the civil service.
Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of inconsistencies which I think important to raise now when we are considering the estimates of the Treasury Board Department. The way I understand the minister's explanations, both outside and inside the House, the role of his department is extremely important. The responsible minister should set up within the Treasury Board a body that would look into such discrepancies that cannot be justified.
You have the choice of two things, Mr. Chairman: either House of Commons employees belong to the public service and, as such, are entitled to all its avantages, or they do not belong to the public service and are therefore entitled to all the benefits available under the various departmental programs, including manpower mobility.
I suggest that we should clarify problems such as this, so that our employees, wherever they are in Canada, or the Canadian people may get what is coming to them without prejudice or contradiction on the part of other departments.
In this connection, I should like to give another example. In the estimates of the department, we shall be asked to votre some amounts of money for the Opportunities for Youth program or the summer student employment program. Mr. Chairman, I feel these programs are important. They should come under the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It was a long time the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
For practical purposes, we may wonder, when we consider some projects, whether they were set up to create jobs to help municipalities or teaching institutions. Mr. Chairman, this is another example among many others of an instance in which the Treasury Board might have an important part to play. If, on the one hand, the minister is endowed with the necessary authority to allocate funds to various programs according to government priorities, I should imagine that, on the other hand, that authority of his to allocate funds should entitle him to review their enforcement. I should think the Treasury Board is a kind of watchdog on the look out for the proper enforcement of laws and the proper management of programs and public funds.

October 23, 1974
Estimates
If the minister manages the $27 billion paid by taxpayers and under various tax programs, I think he is responsible to the people for the proper allocation of those funds with the slightest possible amount of clashes between various programs.
I should therefore be glad to hear the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board in this regard, concerning that increasingly important part to be played by the department. I think the Treasury Board has a privileged position not only to coordinate the work of departments and ensure the enforcement of governmental priorities, but also to enforce laws, and above all to avoid useless and sometimes shocking and unfair contradictions as regards their enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, we in this House often vote for the allocation of sizeable amounts to some particular program. But when it comes to the practical use they are put to owing to ever more complex regulations as well as to civil servants who may feel overly secure in their job and also possibly arrogant and a long way from administration, it appears that those laws do not really meet the needs they were supposed to.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Treasury Board has a part to play, and it should have some organization responsible to the President of the Treasury Board for ensuring that the laws that are voted on and passed by the representatives of the people are being applied in conformity with their targets.
Mr. Chairman, to go one step further in that direction, if an hon. member were critical about something, before he would start pouring out his endless lamentations to the House and wasting the time of hon. members, he could immediately get in touch with the department concerned which would check into the matter of his criticism.
Mr. Chairman, I think that would be a guarantee for the public that the funds will be well spent and will serve their purpose. Nobody is happy to pay taxes, yet everyone has to, because that is the way the administration works. It is understood that the government must keep an open mind on all suggestions and positive remarks that might be made. I think one of those suggestions would be that the Treasury Board stop being run has it has always been, i.e. according to that good old British method where nothing moves and we are content with granting the funds asked for, and that, furthermore, it play an innovative role within the administration. Only then will the new President of the Treasury Board really prove equal to his task.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Peace River, particularly to his criticism of the way in which supply had been handled and his plea to go back to the good old days. In the good old days there was a natural termination to supply in the House of Commons; basically the population was rural in nature and people wanted to leave the House of Commons to get back to the farm to plant their seeds. Therefore, there was a natural desire to get the blazes out of here and do something constructive, so that the estimates usually passed.
Just before I came to the House of Commons in 1965 I had spent two years as an executive assistant watching

the House of Commons, particularly the supply procedures. I recall the good old days when we used to go through the annual procedure of voting supply just prior to the running out of the estimates. There was the odd occasion when, by accident, the estimates were not voted and the pension cheques would be held up for a time. Everyone would feel sorry, and the first opportunity they got they very contritely voted supply as quickly as possible.
The reason that we changed the supply procedures was that it was obvious that they were not working to the satisfaction of either the opposition or members of the government. Thus we came with the new system, the implications of which we are working our way through still.
Just what is the situation? We abolished the committee of supply and put the estimates in the hands of some 20 odd standing committees. At a stroke more time was made available for the discussion of supply than had been the case before. At a stroke there was a greater opportunity to question and to put on the griddle the administrators of government programs-that is, the civil servants. We never had that opportunity before.
We have more opportunity, as a consequence of the new system, to participate in constructive criticism of the spending policies of the government. There is more opportunity given to backbenchers to make themselves heard. Much more careful examination is permitted.
Mr.Baldwin: What about the Minister of Energy who won't let civil servants speak without his consent?


John Mercer Reid: All I can say to that is that any minister who allows a civil servant to express policy is clearly out of his mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: I did not say anything about policy.


John Mercer Reid: If a minister has confidence in his civil servants he can certainly let them talk about administration, and this has been the practice for a very long time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Look at the record.


John Mercer Reid: We have always done that. At any committee I have attended civil servants appeared and provided information at the request of the minister. We still have the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in relation to what goes on in the department. That is the responsibility of the minister, and I see no contradiction at all. Indeed, I would say that the day we cease to have ministerial responsibility and a minister is not accountable for what goes on in his department, that is the day parliamentary democracy goes down the drain. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is quite correct in his approach.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do you agree with Macdonald?


John Mercer Reid: I say we still have the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, and if I were a minister I would be clearly out of my mind-


An hon. Member:: You are.
October 23, 1974


John Mercer Reid: -if I allowed somebody else to take on the responsibility for which I, in the end, would be taken to task.


An hon. Member:: Look what happened to Stanley. They pulled the plug.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And look what happened to Herb Gray.


John Mercer Reid: To go back to a more interesting subject, I think I am fair in interpreting the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River by suggesting that he is prepared to enter into discussions with those of us on this side who are interested in reform not only of the procedures of the committee of supply, but also the procedures of the House as a whole.
The essential difficulty we face is that we have had tremendous misallocation of the use of our time. We changed the situation because there are extraordinarily few members of parliament who now seriously seek to cut estimates. There are few members of parliament who really are serious about chopping items out of the estimates. Just take a look at any of the question periods since we have come back and you will find it very difficult to demonstrate, to any fair-minded person, that the thrust of the questions is for the government to stop spending. The burden of the questions generally is on why are we not spending more. With these changes we are spenders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: As the House of Commons we are spenders. If you will take a look at the estimates over the last two years you will see that that parliament, as a minority, was the greatest spending parliament this country has ever known, and it was a spending parliament in large part because of the minority situation. I cannot recall one instance in respect of any program that there was opposition by the official opposition, and in respect of which it voted against it.
The point is that the philosophy of members of parliament when it comes to dealing with supply has changed. We are no longer out to cut spending, rather we are out to increase supply. That means the approach we take in dealing with estimates is obviously of a different nature. It means that the old system we had was obsolete, and was properly thrown out, Mr. Chairman.
The present system of supply is not satisfactory to the government. The government would like to see substantial changes. The government feels that the opportunities the opposition has had to cross-examine in respect of estimates, both in the committees and in the House, have not been exploited to the full. It is our feeling that the 25 allotted days the opposition has now have not been utilized to the fullest extent, particularly in cross-examining on the estimates. They have been used for other purposes, not in opposition to the rules, but it seems that members of the opposition have had the opportunity within their grasp to focus more clearly on government spending if they had chosen to use the opportunity.
Estimates
After the estimates are returned to the House on May 31 there are up to 13 opposition days at the disposal of the opposition during the month of June. Do we see the members of the opposition bringing forth departmental estimates for discussion in the House of Commons? I suggest the answer is that we do not. Do we hear the opposition members coming forward and saying they agree to a special order in respect of the Committee of the Whole so they can bring these departmental extimates in here? I suggest we do not. Instead what we see is a never ending number of resolutions about this thing or that thing, all items of interest to the public, I am sure, but none that deal with supply.
Under the rules there are opportunities available to members of the opposition which they are not now using. If they were to think about the problem and come up with propositions I am sure the government would be more than prepared to go half way in accommodating them. They might suggest some kind of system to bring back to the floor of the House the estimates within the existing structure. I do not think I am saying anything new to members of the House of Commons because, obviously, this is the case stated by the present President of the Privy Council and his predecessor.
Let me deal with the matter of guidelines and the information the hon. member for Peace River mentioned and about which he is so concerned. I quite agree it has been 18 months since the guidelines were released to the House of Commons. They were referred to the Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, headed by an hon. member of the opposition and a member from the Senate. There was no consideration given during the last parliament to these guidelines which, as I say, were referred 18 months ago.
The point I am trying to make is that the government is prepared to do everything possible to co-operate with the committee. We are prepared to enter into negotiations with members of the opposition once the report is made. We want to ensure that members of parliament get all the information they require.


An hon. Member:: You mean all the information that Keith Davey won't let us have.


John Mercer Reid: We are prepared to do everything we can to see that this comes about, but you cannot fault the government for not having referred these guidelines to a committee of the House of Commons which had the power to hold hearings, to call ministers and other witnesses, and produce a report over a period of 18 months. That is why this will be on the order paper again, and that is why it will be referred again to committee.
The government has been prepared to move quicker on parliamentary reform than have members of the opposition in many cases. The last point I want to make relates to the pro forma speech by the hon. member for Peace River in which he commented about remarks of the President of the Treasury Board. If the argument is not made by that hon. member it is made by the hon. member for Yukon, but the argument is always made, and it is always that they have not had sufficient time. They always say they are under the guillotine, and that these estimates are

October 23, 1974
Estimates
being forced down their throats. They always resent this very much.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are right on.


John Mercer Reid: Even when we had the good old days of the committee of supply opposition members still made the same speech. Nothing has changed. The point I am trying to make is that the circumstances may have changed but the argument has not. This is the same old gang with the same old thoughts.
What we obviously need is to work out some system so the estimates of government can be thoroughly investigated as quickly as possible. There must also at some time be an agreement to put the motion, however brutal that thought may be. This has always been the great problem, getting members on the other side to agree to put the motion. They have always had the concept that as long as they can spin out debate then nothing will happen. Then, of course, we are forced into the situation where some restraint has to be put on, and that has been the case in the past because of the mockery that has been made of supply procedures.
It seems to me that whatever new system of supply we come up with, we will still have to face up to the fact that at some point there has to be a decision. The government is the biggest spender of money and has the most people dependent upon it. We just cannot have a kind of system where things are left to the whims of a few people sitting in the House of Commons.
Members of parliament have a right to vote on these estimates. They have the right to vote against them, and they have the right to reduce them. If the present procedures are not adequate perhaps we should be looking for procedures to make sure their right is fully enshrined, so that if anybody feels he does not have the right this would set him straight.
I can recall the last time members of the opposition swiftly moved to cut into the estimates of a department. That was when they moved to cut out the expenditure of $19,000 in the estimates of Information Canada. The money had already been spent by that time. That is an indication of the opposition being able to cut out certain estimates. The power is there, but whether it is exercised is a matter for members on the other side to determine.
There is also the power on the part of members of committees to reduce estimates and to have these estimates come back in the form of a report. Members of a committee have the power to bring that report to the attention of the House of Commons. That has never been done, to my knowledge, in the manner prescribed by Standing Order 58 by any opposition member of any standing committee. I may not be completely correct on that because I believe once in a committee they went after the president of the CBC and reduced an item to $1 at the time the hon. member for Cochrane was chairman of the committee.
My own feeling is that the current procedures in dealing with supply, while an improvement over what we had before, can still be improved. I do not think we can look at

the question of supply in isolation. I think it must be considered in relation to the over-all procedure of the House of Commons.
There is no secret about the fact that the workload of the House of Commons is increasing because of the amount of government legislation which is before the House. We have, therefore, limited time before us in the House to deal with matters of supply. These are very knotty problems, and it seems to me that if members opposite wish to bring back to the House the committee of supply, in addition to the 25 days now allotted to them under standing orders, then there must be a serious overall attempt to speed up the legislative process.
We have not yet faced the basic problem that our workload is expanding while the time frame remains the same. We will have to make some very difficult decisions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to spend very much time speaking about things referred to specifically by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, except to say it has been my good fortune to serve as Leader of the Opposition in more than one legislature.
I notice here, as well as where I served before, that members on the government side who have never served in the opposition tend to have a certain glibness. I might even say they tend to have a certain arrogance. I know only one cure for this; that is for them to have the good fortune to spend a certain amount of time in the opposition.
I first came to this chamber in the fall of 1967. At that time the estimates came before the House, but there was a time limit. Having come from a legislature in which ministers had to answer questions if they hoped to get their estimates passed, and a legislature in which it was possible even for a small opposition to force a minister to give a satisfactory and full answer, and where the government really was responsible to the legislature and through the legislature to the people, it was very trying to come here and find that the ministers did not answer questions, and that there seemed to be absolutely no way to get ministers to answer questions.
I can recall being completely amazed when sitting here to notice that a minister would say he would take note of a question and then, when it suited him, he would get up and answer the question to which he chose to reply. No matter how unsatisfactory his answer may have been there was nothing the opposition could do about it under the rules as they existed. Today of course there is even less capacity for the opposition to make the minister really responsible.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River spoke about the minister rather than the public servants being responsible. Of course that is true. The point I wish to make, however, which there is no need to belabour, is that we no longer have responsible government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Excuse me. Let me finish. We no longer have it in the sense that a minister must answer to this House. There is no way I know, at least in a majority parliament, for a minister to be made to respond in this
October 23, 1974

House. I wish members of this House and the people of the country to think about this.
I shall not argue this afternoon about the amount of the expenditures, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred. That is not my concern this afternoon. My concern is to emphasize that I was personally struck by the situation here, having come from a legislature in which a minister had to answer questions satisfactorily if he wished to get his estimates through. Dealing with supply is not just a matter of dealing with estimates.
The refusal of parliament to pass supply traditionally has been a weapon available to parliament. In the old days it was used against the King, and then in modern times against a minister. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River must get through his head the fact that it is not merely a matter of reducing estimates, although that might be important. The essence of consideration of supply is that really this is the moment of truth. That is what it used to be, and should be. That is the time when a minister really must answer to this House. In my time here a minister has not had to do this, and on very few occasions has done so. In that very real sense I say that we no longer have responsible government at the federal level in this country.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is nonsense.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister had listened to what I said-


Mitchell William Sharp: I did carefully.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -he would have to agree with what I said, because there is no way under present circumstances in which a minister can be forced to give information to this House. A minister does not give information unless it suits his purpose.
In a sense I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre although I do not know whether I would say he has necessarily put forward the right solution, that of bringing the estimates back to the House, since ministers did not give the information in the House except when it suited their convenience.
This is a very important question. I understand the concern of the government about getting more bills through the House, and so on. Although I understand this concern I would point out that there is a very important other side to the coin, which is that the system is not working. No one need kid himself. When I came here it was very apparent that a minister was not answerable to the House. He was not answerable then, and is not answerable now. There is no point in any one in this House pretending otherwise.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when I asked if I might speak on the estimates I had no intention of becoming involved in the semantics of the rules. That is not my bag. Most of the remarks I had intended to make in reply to my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River were made more effectively than I could make them by the Leader of the Opposition.
Estimates
I should like to remind the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that I served as a minister in a majority parliament, and at that time my Prime Minister, no matter what the provocation, insisted that I stay in the House on a particular day for as long as it took to give the minority every chance to protest. He held that the more vigorous the opposition might be, the more tolerant government should be in allowing it to protest. I do not believe the hon. member for Timiskaming is in the House at the present time, but I have taken his attack four times in the same speech, delivered four times on the same day. Perhaps I could remind the parliamentary secretary, who was not there at the time, that in those days the NDP only had eight members.


An hon. Member:: Good old days.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And the official opposition had less than 50. Those eight members in the NDP would get together and plan their two or three days' attack on the estimates, and they did more to stand the government on its head than did the less than 50 Liberals because they understood the pressure that could be put on a minister who had to stay here until they were satisfied. One of the reasons why the government from 1958 to 1962 was one of the best governments in this country was the calibre of the intelligent opposition we got from the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I pay them that tribute to illustrate a point.
I have been back now in the House for two years, and I confess that I am seriously ashamed and shocked that even though I try to be constructive on occasions and not always partisan I have been in committees where we tried to obtain information from ministers and their officials, but where the Liberals, of whom there were only eight, were not contributing anything much in particular yet each took his full ten minutes so as to make sure we did not have time to ask our questions. This is not a violent statement of prejudice. Now that they have the majority I see the difference already. All that the members on the Liberal side do at the meetings which I have attended in the last two weeks is to vote against us.
Naturally we are going to accept the offer of the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. We do have to try, because we are all good Canadians, to find how we can make it work a little better. I do not foresee bringing all the departments here, and keeping them here indefinitely until the opposition is satisfied, but I would suggest, as a non expert, that if we had in the opposition the right to pick two or three departments, and the government ministers did not know which were going to be picked, then all the ministers would be a little more willing to reply. If we had the right to pick the worst offenders, we would be able to straighten things out. It would not be perfect, but it would help.
We want to try to make parliament work better. Certainly the rules were bad in my day, but they are worse today. That is the point.

October 23, 1974
Estimates
As an example of the other type of abuse of the estimates let me make use of the right of members of parliament to ask questions on specific details. If I could attract the attention of the President of the Treasury Board for a minute, I have a specific question to ask him. When the estimates are prepared on supplementaries, has the custom changed, namely, that these estimates are a true indication of the estimated cost of the item for the fiscal year named on the cover of the estimates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
minister says yes. That is where I think I can demonstrate to him that we can serve this parliament and country well. If we turn to page 6 of the supplementary estimates for Energy, Mines and Resources, we note that there are two supplementary estimates. Vote 11a is for $470 million. In committee we questioned the minister and found that this item was up to the end of October, and that we did not have the information we required for the approval of that estimate in the committee.
But in questioning the minister, and from his own opening statement, we find that Vote 52a for $330 million only covers the months of November and December. Therefore my submission to the minister is that this is not a true reflection of the cost, and that parliament and the people should be told what will be paid in the forum of this subsidy for oil in eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.
This parliament, before it can vote these estimates sincerely and honestly, must know that there is another estimate of approximately $300 million, if not $400 million. I will not quarrel as to whether or not this is the exact figure. The fact is that these estimates do not cover the full fiscal year. Purely on the grounds of a technical error or, as the hon. member for Peace River would say, sloppiness, we are not getting a true estimate.
Naturally one asks why this is so, and the rationalization given to us in committee was that this whole subsidy has no legal basis. Therefore, since they are acting illegally in collecting this money, they did not want this illegality to last too long. They hope, some time in this parliament, to get a bill passed that would legalize the illegal act. I suggest that once you lose your virginity, the time factor is unimportant.
I ask the minister this question: will he consider, in consultation with his officials-because members of the opposition have no right to do this-whether the estimate now before this House, before these three days are over, could be raised to something approaching more closely the real estimate of the cost that the people of Canada will have to put up for this subsidy. I suggest, using the information with which the minister has provided us, that the subsidy to the eastern people is costing us $100 million a month. If we add another $300 million we will have a more accurate estimate. Can the minister tell us whether it is possible to make this change?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to the honourable member in clarification of that item. I referred

to this problem in my presentation. Of course in the supplementary estimates I have tried to cover the months of November and December. It is because this process of transferring money for the export of oil to the eastern consumer has been debated in the House a long time ago. The bill was introduced in the House, but was not passed because of the election. Now we are in October. We started the session only a few weeks ago. At the start we had the debate on the Speech from the Throne. To be honest, we do not know when the bill will be passed. We have made a guess, but we cannot take into account all the factors.
Normally, this bill should be passed by the end of the year, but as we wanted to have the authority to spend that money before the end of the year we put that in the supplementary estimates so that, before we make the expenditure, members of the House will have the occasion to debate it and vote on it. If those estimates are passed by the end of this week the House will have authorized the government to pay the subsidy to the eastern consumers until the end of the year. We hope that by that time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will have received approval through the passage of the legislation in the House.
If the House turns down the legislation, it will mean that at the end of the year there will be no more authority to pay the subsidy. We are not trying to mislead anyone. On the contrary, we are making sure that hon. members are aware of the fact that those payments will be made in November and December.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think we have joined issue fairly on this item. My point is that the government has no right in the first instance to assume that parliament will pass this legislation before Christmas. The government knows that all parties have supported the principle of this subsidy. We are not quarrelling about the fact that they are doing this illegally because of the circumstances. We are saying that the proper presentation to the House and to the country of supplementary estimates A, and the calculation of the estimated cost, whether done legally or illegally, is not the point. It should be the amount you expect to spend by the end of the fiscal year, not the calendar year.
I am raising this point for the experts because I do not consider myself an expert. I recall that when I sat in Treasury Board we always hounded the departments to be precise in their estimates. If a minister brought before Treasury Board estimates for eight or nine months, he was sent back. I am really asking the minister if he would not agree that to add $400 million would be more honest estimating and more honest reporting to the House. The media should be able to report to the country that this program is going to cost $1,200 million, not $800 million. This matter is put forward without any desire on my part to make political hay, but just in a desire for honest reporting. If the officials can find a way to do it, let them be a little more honest in reporting their estimates.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I should like to look into that question. I have been very candid and explained why we did this. We could have estimated up to the end of the fiscal year, but we took a calculated risk that the bill
October 23, 1974

would be passed by the end of the year and we did not want to presume too much regarding the content of the bill. It was and I regret to use the term, a conservative estimate and we tried not to prejudge what the House would do. The point made by the hon. member is a good one, and perhaps we should forecast for the total fiscal year. I wanted to be as honest as possible with the House. I did not want to hide anything; I wanted the judgment of the House when members voted on the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. At this time I should like to seek direction from members of the committee. It was suggested that the time allocated to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of the Treasury Board should be a maximum of an hour and a half. Three or four members are standing, seeking to speak. Much time has been spent in general debate on the question of past and future procedures for the study of supply, so I would invite comments from hon. members on how the Chair should proceed at this time. Should we close this debate, and proceed to another item?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, possibly there are a few comments to be made and questions to be asked. The committee might consider allowing this department's estimates to continue to not later than 5.30. That would leave three hours for consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I know the minister is most anxious to get started.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I would go along with the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River. To a large extent, these proceedings are in the hands of the opposition. It was their suggestion that time be allocated to the departments, and if they would like to have less time for the Department of Transport, and more for Treasury Board, I am sure we will be satisfied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since we are operating on the basis of an agreement and not a fixed order, obviously we have to be a bit flexible. My colleagues and I would rather move to Transport now, but we will accept, say, 5.20. That is, if this department is not finished by 5.20, we will move on to Transport.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, as the previous speakers pointed out, it is not a rigid regulation. It is rather an amicable arrangement. I think I will support the proposition made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with the hope that the President of the Privy Council may accept it. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity, still on that same point of order, to say to the parliamentary secretary that if what he said a few moments ago about the opposition was true, Mr. Chairman, we would have answered no a long time ago.


Gérald Laniel: We are proceeding under an agreement, and this makes it a little more difficult for the Chair to meet the objective of 5.20 or 5.30. Hon. members, of course, could cut short their speeches or questioning so that as many members as possible could participate.
Estimates


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know what the agreement is that hon. members are speaking of, but I was not privy to it. I think I have as much right as anyone else in this committee to speak and to be heard. I am getting a little fed up, because I come into the House day after day and find that the party "wheels" and party whips have got together and made some sort of agreement. I represent a good many constituents in the province of New Brunswick, and I desire to be heard and I hope to be heard.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Leonard C. Jones: I do not belong to any of the standing committees and therefore do not have an opportunity to speak in those committees, so I want to be heard in this House and in committee of the whole.


Gérald Laniel: I note that the hon. member, like other hon. members, rose and participated in this debate. Some hon. members have not yet been recognized. It is the prerogative of the Chair to call on hon. members one at a time; two members cannot speak at the same time. We have to proceed in an orderly way in committee of the whole and in the House. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to speak at this point in the proceedings, but when the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made his eloquent speech I thought we had, suddenly, a TV camera in the House. The hon. member said the opposition has the right to vote on estimates, to vote against them or to reduce them; but, Mr. Chairman, hon. members on this side of the House do not always have a chance to get answers in committee.
The other night I had the misfortune of attending a committee meeting on supply and services when the minister was sick. I understand he is still sick. However, he was represented at the committee by his deputy minister. The president of two corporations was before the committee-Canadian Arsenals Corporation and Canadian Commercial Corporation. I agree that if we had been given proper information and our questions had been answered, we would have no reason to raise these matters in this chamber. I think the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River should make the same admission as some members of his party who were at the committee: they were ashamed of the answers we were getting. The president of Canadian Commercial Corporation could not tell us the names of the ten major companies with whom he dealt, and as president of Canadian Arsenals Corporation-it is the same gentleman-he could not answer all the questions we asked. In fact, he could not answer any. I made a motion which even the Liberals supported, that we demand this information.
I think the government should make sure that the civil servants who come to committees are prepared to answer the questions of the opposition. I think if any government member or any minister went through the report of that committee meeting he would not find one question that was unfair. Every question was legitimate. Canadian Arsenals Corporation has been losing money for a year. Although it employs 500 people, it is costing the Canadian taxpayer $3 Vi million. Therefore, the Canadian people have a right to know what that company does in its

October 23, 1974
Estimates
operations. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River shakes his head. We could not get answers.
I am standing here now taking up time of this committee, which I did not plan to do. I have to do it because I listened to what the hon. member said, which sort of indicated he is white and we are all black. I do not think that is quite the way it is. If he is looking for co-operation, he should make sure we get the answers we want. He should also make sure that the people who appear before the committee have the answers we want. Members on this side of the House would then co-operate with members on the other side and make sure government business is handled quickly.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Chairman, like other members, I did not intend to intervene. This has been a very useful debate on how estimates are handled. I understand that in the British parliament and in other parliaments they have almost given up on the estimates. I believe in many cases the estimates are tabled. That is an abdication of the responsibility of parliament. There is legitimate concern on the part of members of the opposition who have expressed their point of view about their ability to deal with the estimates. The difficulty lies in the fact that as far as estimates are concerned, the committee system is not functioning the way it should. The chairmen of committees should call more frequent meetings to deal with specific situations. The time given to committees has not been adequate to deal with the witnesses brought before them. Hon. members of this House, myself included, have not been adequately prepared when going to committee meetings. We have not been prepared to the extent necessary in order to make the examination that it is our obligation to make.
The reform of the procedures of this House wherein we abolished the committee of supply was, on balance of consideration by hon. members, a good move. The rules provide for better use of our opportunities of examination. However, there is an obligation on all of us who are members of committees to make sure that meetings are more frequent and to make better use of the time allocated for witnesses and civil servants who are called before committees. If there were less waste of time and more efficient and adequate opportunity, we would carry out the kind of examination that I am sure we in conscience feel we should.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct some questions to the President of the Treasury Board. When the President of the Treasury Board appeared before the miscellaneous estimates committee and answered questions, I tried to get some rationale from him as to the formula used by the government to control increasing expenditures at the federal level. At that time he said the goal of the government is that total federal expenditures in relation to the gross national product should be relatively the same. He then said they have been relatively the same, and gave certain figures. For example, government expenditures in 1972 represented 15 per cent of the gross national product. He also referred to certain other years. I pressed the minister on that point and said I understood the figure was more like 20 per cent. I gave him some
(Mr. Reynolds.]
figures. Then there was general agreement that he would supply a table, which would be appended to the minutes of the committee meeting, setting out his figures.
That table has just appeared. It seems to seriously misrepresent the government's position and I take great exception to the way the table is set out. For example, it shows 1973 total government expenditures, and then in small type, "exclusive of transfers to other governments, at $17,595,000,000". Surely the President of the Treasury Board knows that the estimates being considered at the present time are $24 billion.
There is no explanation whatsoever for that figure. The, various percentage figures are shown. However, when they come down to provincial and municipal figures, an entirely different presentation is made. The impression left is that federal government expenditures, before all transfers, are much lower in reality when compared to the provinces that are shown. I would like the President of the Treasury Board to explain why they have to practice such deceit.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to the argument of the hon. member. When I appeared before the committee I tabled the information which I had. I did not want to mislead anyone. I offered not only what I was stating, but the table that I had in front of me. One can, of course, argue what is and what is not a real government expenditure. Sometimes in the total expenditures of the three levels of government there could be double accounting. I wanted to make sure that did not happen. I am not an accountant, but I know what is a double entry. If we take $1 billion from the taxpayers at the federal level and transfer it to the provincial government, it is the same money; it is not new money. One sees the same $1 billion in our expenditures and in the books of the various provinces. It is not a new expenditure that must be taken into account.
I would like the hon. member for York-Simcoe to tell me if I am wrong when I try to explain to the people-and the people have the right to know-that in relation to the gross national product of this country, total federal expenditures has not increased over the last ten years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Wrong.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member can say it is wrong, but I have given the table to the House. That is his opinion. However, most of the increase in public expenditures at this time has occurred at the provincial level. Many expenditures of the government are often transfer payments to the provinces to help them fulfil their obligations. It is important that the public knows that the federal government transfers money. However, it is not right if the taxpayer believes that twice the amount of money is being spent, when in fact it is just being transferred to the provincial governments. The public is given the wrong impression when that is included as double accounting. I have tried to explain that. Of course, the hon. member is at liberty to disagree with me. Sometimes I am very happy when a member like him disagrees with me. However, we must state the facts.
If you exclude the transfer of payments from the expenditures of the federal government to date, they are no
October 23, 1974

higher than 12 years ago when related to the gross national product. In addition, we must look at the number of new services that we have given to the public. The public should realize that. That is why I have given these figures. I am surprised that the hon. member is not repeating the figures I gave in relation to what was the consideration in 1961-62 when the take of the federal government from the taxpayer, in relation to the gross national product, was higher than it is today, despite the fact that we have introduced new programs. We have tripled family allowances, we have new programs for old age security, health services and other services for which the people of Canada are very appreciative. Despite that, the take of the gross national product is no higher at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, it is in the interests of this committee that we get the facts. I am referring to total government expenditures before all transfers. Does the minister agree it is approximately $24 billion and that that is something in excess of 20 per cent of our gross national product?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have the table here. Total federal government expenditure, including transport, is $22.4 billion-18.8 per cent of the gross national product. That compares with $7.1 million and 18.1 per cent in 1961 at a time when there was no medicare, no health services, no family allowances at the level we have now. So I think that for one-seventh of one per cent of the GNP we have done very well in the last ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Does the minister not think, then-


Gérald Laniel: Order. The minister and the hon. member are in disagreement, but because of the limitation on our time I think I should call on other members. There are only seven minutes left.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I understood one could speak for a 20 minute period, or ask questions for a 20 minute period.


Gérald Laniel: The order says members would be allowed to speak once for 20 minutes once. This would not exclude the asking of questions. But as hon. members know, the debate has been twofold, it has been on the general question of supply, and we have already taken a good deal of the time which should have been allotted for the consideration of the Minister's estimates. The Chair cannot control what hon. members say, and when I suggested that the time allotted to this particular phase of the debate be extended, it was in order to allow as many members as possible to make comments on the minister's estimates or to ask questions.
If we pursue a line of questioning between the minister and the hon. member because they base their arguments on different figures or have different points of view, the time allotted to this portion of the debate will be used up. That is why I thought it would be fair to call on other hon. members. If there are a few minutes left at the end we may come back to the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
Estimates


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to get into this disease of verbosity on inflation which has been rendered here this afternoon. I have three questions I wish to direct to the President of the Treasury Board. On page 29 of Schedule A there is an item which reads: "contingencies, $90 million dollars." Then, in small print, it says:
-and authority to re-use any sums allotted for non-paylist requirements and repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations.
I should like an explanation of what that means.
My second question concerns an item on the same page under "public service bilingualism." I should like to know whether this represents the total cost of bilingualism in the public service and agencies of government and, in particular, whether it includes the amount voted for the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The third question I should like to ask concerns employer contributions to employee pension programs. How much of this is for the Canada Pension Plan and how much for the Quebec Pension Plan? I thought those were the type of questions we should be asking at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I will appreciate specific answers to the specific points I have raised.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will give the hon. member some specific answers. First, when we take money from the contingency vote in the fiscal year for one department, as the time comes for supplementary estimates we put that amount into the supplementary estimates so that hon. members may have the chance to comment and vote on the expenditure which has been made. As to the second question, the answer is, no. Not all the costs are included. I think it will take a couple of minutes to get the answer to the hon. member's third question. I will give it to the hon. member later in our discussion.


Mr. McKinley:: Could the minister tell us whether last summer a directive was sent by Treasury Board to all government departments to the effect that no federal property should be offered for sale in any circumstances? Does this apply even to buildings which are not being used, and which are not likely to be used by the government in the foreseeable future. I am thinking, for example, of post offices in towns in which new post offices have been constructed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The policy is this: when a building is not used by the government it is turned over to the Department of Public Works to determine what kind of use the government might have for it in the future. If the department finds there is nobody within the government who has any use for the building, I believe it is turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal. Until the Department of Public Works has determined the government has no other use for the building, it is not prudent for the government to sell it, since it might well be needed for another operation.


Robert Elgin McKinley: This does not appear to be the performance that is taking place in Exeter. The answer the minister has given me saying the building would be offered to other government departments is not adequate in this case, because an offer has been made to lease to the town a building in which the town is interested. However, the

October 23, 1974
Estimates
town wishes to purchase the building. Possibly the minister could obtain a further answer for me later.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I think the hon. member might be able to get an answer later from the Minister of Public Works, who will be presenting his estimates in due course.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I might turn to another part of the minister's testimony before the committee. I asked him to what extent had provision been made in the accounting for the promises which had been made during the Liberal election campaign. The President of the Privy Council replied:
I think we will only implement $10 million in new money for that out of a budget of $22 billion.
Will the minister give us details about this $10 million?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What I said at the time was that only $10 million had been approved for new programs up to that date. The amount of $10 million had been allocated to certain programs which had been mentioned by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs during the campaign.
The political party of which I am a member has made other promises and the government will implement them in due course. We have stated that we will do this and that, and take four years to live up to our mandate. We have said: "Don't worry about it, we will live up to our obligations".


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We have reached, and even gone beyond 5.20, and I wonder if the hon. minister is ready to answer the question put by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones)?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With the House's consent, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give an answer to the third point in the question put by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones), relating to the contribution to the federal government pension plan and to the Quebec provincial pension plan. I must say that we do not have any information on the subject and consequently we cannot say how much money has been contributed to the province of Quebec and how much money has been contributed to the Canada Pension Plan general funds; but what we can say is that the total for the 1974-75 fiscal year is about $32 million. The hon. member can find the details page 28.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Having reached 5.20 o'clock in the afternoon this should complete consideration of the estimates of the Department of Treasury Board. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Transport, to be found at pages 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the bill.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when the hon. member for Moncton spoke earlier he made reference to the fact that he was not permitted to participate in committee hearings. It is my understanding that the standing orders provide that any member of the House of Commons may participate in any committee hearings, though he may not be formally a member of the commit-

tee. He has the right to question and to participate as much as any other member, but he does not, however, have the right to vote. But, as I say, he does have the right to participate in the deliberations of the committee.


Gérald Laniel: I can only answer for the committee of the whole.


Leonard C. Jones: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary had better get things straight. I am as much a member of parliament as he is, and I should have as much right to be a member of a standing committee as he. I do not sit here as a member of the opposition or as a member of the government, but I am a member of parliament, and I want to make that point clear.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I thank the hon. member for his contribution but I do not think that this is the time to make any decision on his grievance. He should raise it in the proper form when the House is sitting and the Speaker is in the chair.
On Schedule A-Transport.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates found in Schedule A of the bill on pages 25, 26, 27 and 28.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I believe that after all the discussions and questions we have now had in the House, I am ready to answer, with the help of the officials of the Department of Transport, the question hon. members wish to ask with regard to the estimates of that department. I therefore need not make a speech: I would doubtless repeat what I will say during the debate on those estimates. I am therefore at the service of the House to answer questions.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Chairman, I will try to emulate the minister and not make a speech. I should like to make a few remarks for four or five minutes, and save some of my time for later and for my hon. friends. It is with a great deal of respect that I say that in the more than 90 days since July 8 we have seen encompassed therein not a 90 day decision period, as the late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson once promised, but 90 days of indecision. Nowhere has this been more clearly manifested than in the Department of Transport. Commitments made by the minister and his predecessor dating back to the twenty-eighth parliament have not yet been kept, and promises and undertakings, proclaimed with much fanfare during the recent election campaign this summer, have so far amounted to nothing.
This vast, sprawling Department of Transport-again I say this with respect-runs the minister; the minister does not run the department. I think this is a regrettable situation. We in the official opposition favour certain definite policies designed to improve the Canadian transportation system and which we believe are necessary clearly to establish and assert the authority of the minister. We should like to see the minister take some initiatives to
October 23, 1974

exert his authority, which we believe he has pursuant to legislation that already exists.
I refer the minister to a statement made by the President of the Canadian Transportation Commission at our most recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. He said that he agreed that, pursuant to section 50 of the National Transportation Act, the minister could, if he wished, use the CTC as an instrument to direct the railways to change some of the unsatisfactory practices that now exist.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member referred to the testimony of the President of the CTC. Would he please be kind enough to quote the page, because I did not understand him to say exactly what the hon. member said.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not have, nor do I believe exist, the minutes of that meeting. I do not wish to be unfair in this regard, and perhaps I have misquoted what the president said. I checked with my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre a few moments ago to see whether my information was correct, and he seemed to agree.
I only wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is my understanding that parliament has provided several ordinary standards of efficiency that a railway ought to meet. For example, the Railway Act requires that a railway company shall, according to its powers, without delay and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all traffic offered for carriage on the railway. That provision is in section 262(1) (c) of the act. There are other sections, for example section 265(1) and (2), which require that a railway company shall, according to its powers, afford to all persons and companies all reasonable and proper facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivery of traffic.
These requirements or conditions are mandatory and if the railway does not meet them it is derogatory in its duty. It is pursuant to this type of reasoning that the power of the minister, under Section 48 of the Transportation Act, provides that the commission shall upon the request of the minister inquire into, hear and determine any matter or thing that under the Railway Act it may inquire into, hear and determine.
I would take the minister one step further, again back to Section 50 of the Transportation Act, and say that the government in council having decided on its own motion that the railway is insufficient or unsafe, from some point of view or other, has the power under the act to refer that insufficiency to the commission for action, and the commission must comply immediately with the government's reference. I only bring this forward to express the hope, in a constructive way, that the minister will explore the options available to him under the existing legislation.
Going back to March 14, 1972, the minister's predecessor, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, made a commitment that he would be bringing in important legislation, among other things designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, divorcing it as it were from the CNR, and introducing a Canadian National Railways Act, and other legislation
Estimates
covering the Railway Act. This was promised in the twenty-eighth parliament and it has not been done as yet. I suggest to the minister that for that reason he can hardly blame us for being a little skeptical. That is why I put this suggestion forward at this time. If he is not going to bring forward some new initiatives he should at least explore the options he has open to him.
I think the minister should, as a major initiative, try to improve labour relations and encourage discussions between labour and management under the auspices of the Department of Labour. I know he will have read the story in today's Globe and Mail under the heading "Rail unions bargaining may produce 1975 formula for settlements". The article goes on to refer to improved labour negotiations in transportation in the upcoming year, and refers also to airlines. I suggest that the minister should work toward this objective. He should seriously explore the objective of having labour contracts for our two major railways expire at different times. This would help to avoid national paralysis at times of labour disputes in this industry.
I believe the minister should work seriously toward establishing Crown agencies, divorced from the CNR system, to operate the ferry services to our island provinces. We would not then get into the same type of problem we have experienced during times of national disruption of our rail service.
I would also suggest to the minister in the context of these estimates that, in the interest of increased transportation, safety, and free dissemination of information, he should insist that in any accident investigation carried out by the CTC, the minister's department or other investigative bodies, the results should be accessible to the public. This has not always been done, but 1 think the minister agrees it should be done.
I notice that the latest information dated October 21, the federal-provincial ministers' communique on western transportation initiatives, relates that the minister also stated this would be followed at a later stage by an information act that would seek to make available the broader range of transportation information that is needed to plan and realize Canada's transportation needs.
I would hope that the minister in this context will try to make certain that the activities of our Crown corporations are more accessible to the public, including the specific duties and responsibilities of officials employed therein. I make these suggestions in all good faith to the minister.
I should now like to ask the minister a few questions through you, Mr. Chairman. My first questions concern the STOL program, and I would refer to the statement the minister made to the standing committee in April of this year. The minister said there was $15.5 million budgeted for the buying of aircraft and for the STOL operation in Montreal and Ottawa. I believe there has been an increase of about $10 million, bringing that to the level of about $25 million. I realize these are only approximate figures.
I am troubled by the allegation, as I think the minister is as well, of Mr. Ian D. Sinclair, Chairman of Canadian Pacific, in which he forecast a higher level of expenditure, claiming that if all the costs of the STOL operation are considered the total cost would be $158 million, not $25
670

October 23, 1974
Estimates
million as government spokesmen have contended. I would like to stop now and ask the minister to tell us briefly by how much Mr. Sinclair's estimate is in error.


Jean Marchand: $125 million.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The minister is then saying that there is absolutely no relevance or accuracy in that estimate of $158 million. I thank the minister for that answer. I should now like to ask him some questions about marine transportation. The minister has been quoted as being in favour of a Canadian merchant marine, or the restoration of the same. Can he tell us whether his department is considering seriously the establishment of a Canadian deep sea merchant fleet as requested by many shipping concerns and, in the labour movement, by the Seafarers' International Union?
In the context of that question I should like to ask the minister to comment on the action of the CPR in the commissioning of seven large ships to be constructed in Japan, and registered outside Canada in order to avoid Canadian taxes and the hiring of Canadian seamen. Is the minister aware that these ships are engaged in the transportation of Canadian natural resources, which probably helped pay for their construction in the first place?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we are at grips with a problem here. The hon. member might perhaps tell me exactly what the situation is. The shipyards have now received orders for the construction of a large number of ships.
Some of them, such as Davie Shipbuilding Limited and Marine Industries Limited of Sorel, and probably several others, have contract for years to come. Even if Canadian Pacific were to decide tomorrow to award a contract, let us say, to Marine Industries Limited, it could not expect to have it completed before three or four years.
The problem for shipyards throughout the world in the last few years has been the large number of contracts.

Why do we have as many contracts in our shipbuilding yards in Canada? I suggest it is because all the shipyards in the world are operating at full capacity and they cannot fulfil any new orders. Unless the hon. member can prove that CP has done this because it wanted to discriminate against Canadian shipyards, I can only believe it has done so because it could not have the ships built in Canadian shipyards.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That may well be the case, and I thank the minister for his answer. I know of one or two shipyards that are perhaps not capable of building as large a vessel as CP requires, but they would be very glad of some government assistance in upgrading their facilities and their capabilities. The minister will have to look into this aspect as well if he is serious about increasing our capability in the merchant marine field.
I have a related question which I put to the minister at a recent committee meeting. I would like to ask him about the terms of reference and the appointment of Mr. Desjardins, pursuant to Section 14(5) of the Pilotage Act, to enquire into the Laurentian Pilotage Authority. Now that

the minister has had an opportunity to consider this, would he indicate why the terms of reference or conditions read as they do, and indicate whether that is the case common to commissions of this type, or for some reason is this unique?
I refer to two conditions. The first is subclause 2 of the terms of reference. It states that Mr. Desjardins shall not be subject to the customary rules of evidence, nor need evidence be taken under oath. The second is that the investigation shall not be conducted by means of public hearings but, on the contrary, through the investigation and examination of those persons whom the said investigator deems possessed of evidence relevant to the subject matter whose evidence should be examined in the public interest.
This may be very innocuous, Mr. Chairman, but the terms of reference in respect of this particular appointment trouble me. I also wonder why a similar investigation of the pilotage authority was commissioned to Mr. A. F. Marler, whose report was received on December 31, 1973, I believe. Can the minister tell me why it was necessary to have two reports dealing with the same subject in such a comparatively short period of time? Could he also tell me whether or not he has decided to issue publicly the Desjardins report?


Jean Marchand: Well, as you know, the Desjardins report was not made under the Inquiries Act of Canada. Mr. Desjardins was asked by the Minister of Transport to prepare a report on the problem of language on the St. Lawrence River. This is the report we have. One might ask why this inquiry was not carried out in a different manner, or why a royal commission inquiry was not made into this matter. That would be an acceptable question. However, for the time being what we intended was to ask Mr. Desjardins to see what would be the impact of using both languages on the St. Lawrence River so far as pilotage and the duties of masters are concerned. This is the report we have.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that answer. Perhaps I might return to another part of my question. I may be making too much out of the terms of reference of the investigation. It could be that this is a common thing. However, I still would like to know why Mr. Desjardins was directed to carry out the inquiry and waive the customary rules of evidence, including the requirement to swear in witnesses.
I would point out to the minister that although this is not under the Inquiries Act, as he rightfully pointed out, I believe it comes under the next section in the Pilotage Act, section 14(6), where it is specifically stated that in an inquiry such as that of Mr. Desjardins there are all the powers, pursuant to the Pilotage Act, which one finds in the Inquiries Act. For example, was this requirement exercised in respect of the Marler report, which I presume deals with the same subject matter? Perhaps the minister does not have that information handy.


Jean Marchand: No. I would like the hon. member to tell us whether he believes there are any shortcomings in respect of the mandate Mr. Desjardins
October 23, 1974

received. For instance, had he received another mandate would it be possible that there would be more light on the subject that was discussed? This is the only question. We do not mind under which act he functioned. Mr. Desjardins studied the problem of security of navigation on the St. Lawrence River. He produced a certain amount of testimony, which is very well specified in his report. I think what the hon. member should ask me is whether I am satisfied with that report, or whether we might have learned more had we used another means of inquiry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, may I say I am intrigued by this precisely for the reason I am unable to obtain information. Perhaps the minister will remember that a short time ago, after this parliament opened, he indicated he had the Desjardins report on his desk. Since it was so difficult to obtain I became interested in it because I understood it would be made available.
Before the standing committee the minister indicated that the Desjardins report would be made public, but I believe the minister was in error because he said later the same afternoon that there was not in fact a public release of the Desjardins report. I would like to make some constructive suggestions but I find it difficult to do so since I have not received a copy of the report.
As a lawyer I am bothered by the fact that any person who is to conduct an inquiry should be specifically forbidden to do certain things. For instance, I refer to the section which states that the investigation shall not be subject to the customary rules of evidence, nor need evidence be taken under oath. I do not think that is a very healthy type of prohibition in respect of anyone conducting an inquiry, particularly an inquiry into such an important subject as this. I do not wish to belabour the subject further because I know in due course I will receive answers and that the report will be released.
If I may, I should like to ask the minister whether he will seriously consider splitting off Air Canada from its financial inter-directorate dependency on the CNR? Does the minister have this in mind?


Jean Marchand: Yes. However, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we should keep on the first aspect of this question. What is your problem? Is it the fact that you do not have the report?


An hon. Member:: This is not his problem. It is your problem. You are the minister.


Jean Marchand: I merely wish to understand exactly what the hon. member wants. If the only problem is that he wishes to have the report, then I do not think I could refuse circulation of the report. Once he had that report he could ask his questions. Would that be all right? Now perhaps we might switch to the other point. What about Air Canada?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is it your intention to split Air Canada from its dependency on the CNR?


Jean Marchand: That is a very important question. I am ready to discuss that, either in the committee or in the House. If one were to ask my opinion I would
Estimates
say that, personally, I would like to see Air Canada one day disassociated from the CNR. However, at the present time it is not. Would this be a good thing? I would like to have your opinion on that. My own view is that I would like Air Canada to be separated from the CNR.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Central Nova but the time allotted him has expired. I shall now recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There are a number of matters which I, and other members, would like the minister to explain, if he can do so this afternoon or tomorrow. I will repeat what I have said every year for six years. I wish there were a great deal more in the supplementary estimates and the main estimates each year so that the Canadian Pacific Railways, their subsidiary and ancillary operations, could be placed under public ownership to develop a publicly owned and operated air, ground and water transportation system which would in fact meet the needs of this country.
Similarly, we need more estimates to re-nationalize the CNR, especially when I read some of the remarks of the new president about making profits, etc. He sounds as bad as the president of CPR. This is another reason why we do not get the kind of service from our ground and air transportation systems to which the public is entitled.
In fact Canada and the U.S. are about the only two countries left in the world that are still hiding their heads in the sand and relying on the nineteenth century concept of private enterprise profit making transportation systems. Even the Minister of Transport has admitted-I am not saying that I will quote him directly but I think I am paraphrasing him reasonably accurately-that competition between railroads in Canada does not work. I could not agree more. It may work for railroads, but it does not work for Canada and its people.
While there may not be very much of anything in these supplementary estimates to start accomplishing the things I have mentioned, I hope that after what the minister and his predecessor have been through at the hands of our railway systems, our airlines and a few other transportation systems in Canada, he will now persuade his colleagues, and get the government behind a program to place our transportation systems under social ownership so as to meet the social and economic needs of the country.
There are also a few current matters that have presented problems in parts of Canada, and I know the minister has been conscientiously trying to deal with them. I may disagree with the methods he used, but at least I give him credit for trying to do something about them. He has not had too much success as yet. I am referring to such things as rail branch abandonment, freight rate freezes, and cost disclosures from the railroads, to name three of many items that have concerned both him, us, and several provinces for some years. I hope that after I sit down, shortly after eight o'clock, the minister will take a few minutes to try to bring all the members of the House up to date in these areas.
28305-43Va

October 23, 1974
Estimates
For example, if the minister will recall-and if not I will refresh his memory-I believe there was a public commitment from the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board that no branch lines will be abandoned without the concurrence of the provincial government. However, I have the impression that the minister is now saying that no lines will be abandoned until suitable alternative arrangements have been made. I am sure there are at least three provinces which do not know which of the two is correct.
If the minister is correct, what does he mean by "suitable alternative arrangements"? Can he tell us about his meetings with his counterparts from the three or four western provinces in the past week in this regard? What is the federal position? Can we rely on the commitment we obtained prior to the election date? Will the minister consider extending the rail branch line freeze, at least until we get all the information that is needed from the railroads regarding their costs, and regarding the wishes of the users of the rail service along those branch lines, the farm and business organizations concerned, and the municipal and provincial governments concerned?
I agree that some rationalizing is needed, but not nearly as much as the railroads would like, and not nearly as much as the people who would like to get into the commercial trucking of grain would like. What progress is the minister making in this area? Will the freeze be lifted at the end of the year? How many lines are to be abandoned, and under what conditions? What kind of suitable rates does he envisage? What progress is he making in this whole area.
With regard to the freeze on the freight rates I should like to know from the minister how much money has been expended so far in compensating both railroads for the freight rates in the past 15 months, or for whatever length of time the freeze has been in effect. A figure has been given to me but I do not know whether it is accurate, and I should like the minister to tell us how much compensation has been paid to the two major railroads, whether any of it is in the supplementary estimates, and how much is in the new main estimates. I should like to know on what basis such compensation payments are made. Is it on the basis of a telephone call from Mr. Sinclair saying: "We need so much money to compensate us for the freight rates", or does the minister have accurate information regarding the necessary compensation to bring the railroads up at least to a break even point, if not a profit point, on the freight rates that were frozen?
I hope that a blank cheque has not been provided to the two major railways by way of compensation for the freight rates. Will the minister extend the freeze on freight rates? The freeze only affects rates on about 22 per cent of railway traffic, and there is a large area of other rates with which they have been having a ball.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


B. Keith Penner: It being 6 p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight this evening pursuant to a special order made on Thursday, October 3, 1974.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Mclsaac:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Transport will be along in a few seconds. In the meantime, we could perhaps carry on.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. When the House rose at six o'clock, the committee was considering the estimates of the Department of Transport. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, I think the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley is a great fellow, but even he does not measure up as a substitute for the Minister of Transport who we have been waiting to question for a number of days. At the time of the supper adjournment I was speaking about the freight rate freeze. I would ask the minister to spend ten minutes or so answering the questions that I put before six o'clock and those I am going to ask now, and to deal with some statements I intend to make.
I asked him before six o'clock what amount of compensation the government is paying to the railways as a result of the freight rate freeze. I want to know from the minister whether any compensation was paid during the freeze. The railways raised rates on commodities on which the rates were not frozen in excess of any justifiable increase in cost, in order to ensure they did not close during the period of the freight rate freeze. I am interested in knowing what inquiries the minister has made about this, and what he has to say to the management of both railway companies in terms of freight rate increases during the so-called freeze.
I have a table somewhere here on freight rates that were not affected by the freeze but which, in fact, were increased. To add insult to injury in western Canada-but I will have to forget that, Madam Chairman, because I cannot find it. Suffice it to say that for steel products shipped from Hamilton to Calgary, compared with steel products shipped from Hamilton to Vancouver, both railways raised their rates in February and March. They are still doing very nicely.
An hon Member: Here comes the minister.


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, I was delayed by a Conservative.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is too bad the minister did not do like me tonight, watch his waistline and not eat too much.
I hope, Madam Chairman, you will grant me an extra couple of minutes to repeat what I have just said. I was talking about the freight rate freeze. I would like the minister to advise whether he inquired into rate increases by the railways during the freeze on rates. I am thinking particularly of steel products being shipped from Hamilton to Vancouver, Hamilton to Calgary and so forth. There are a number of similar instances such as rapeseed versus rapeseed oil from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, to Vancouver. I understand it is still cheaper to send the rapeseed by rail to Vancouver and boat to Japan, than to end the oil to
October 23, 1974

Saskatoon. I hope I am wrong. Possibly the minister has made inquiries into that. Was this pursued in his discussions with the representatives of the four western provinces?
I now wish to deal with a subject which angered the minister and about which he waxed eloquent in this House some time ago. I refer to cost disclosures. If the railways were not prepared voluntarily to disclose their alleged costs, the minister said he would require them to do that even if it was necessary to involve parliament. We all applauded. The minister was assured that that kink of legislation would be passed in record time. In fact, if it will make him feel better, I will not make a speech.
My understanding, from what limited information I am able to get, is that the four western premiers and the Minister of Transport are still being treated like a prospective customer of the CNR or CPR when it comes to getting information. We would like to know the minister's intentions with respect to when he will be bringing that legislation into this chamber, either as an amendment to the Railway Act, Canadian Pacific Railway Act, or whatever act needs to be amended. The railroads should be required to make full disclosure of the cost estimates they use to arrive at what they call justifiable returns on freight rates. We are anxious to know that.
I now wish to return to the subject of branch lines. In his discussions with representatives of the western provinces over the past several days, did the minister deal with the other side of the coin; the social, economic and human costs versus the savings, convenience and profits for railways and trucking companies with respect to what number of branch lines, if any, are to be abandoned?
Last May and June a branch line 90 miles in length was closed. I cite this as an example of the kinds of costs people face in order to convenience the railroads and grain companies. Because a branch line had not been operating for over three months, a farmer in Imperial, Saskatchewan, was told he would have to deliver his carload of barley to Davidson, 35 miles away. This involved 10 loads and an additional $300 in order to fill his quota and get a special permit from the Canadian Wheat Board. He asked why he could not deliver his grain to Watrous as that was on the CNR main line. He was told he could not do that, and that he had to deliver to Davidson.
The estimates will be coming up to provide for the maintenance and operation of branch lines of both railroads. I hate to say this about my pet publicly owned transportation system, the CNR, but both railroads have deliberately allowed their branch lines to deteriorate to the point where no one would touch them with a 10-foot pole. I hope the minister will not fall into the trap of taking over the roadbeds and trackage because it would cost upwards of $1 billion to put them into a condition to carry traffic.
We would like the minister to report on extending the freeze on branch lines. Will he live up to the commitment made by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, that no branch line will be closed without the consent of the provincial government? If that commitment is to be forgotten, what does he mean by "an appropriate alternate method of service"?
Estimates
I particularly want to know how much money the minister and his colleagues have agreed to part with by way of compensation during the freight rate freeze. If the minister is unable to give that figure now, I hope he will do so during the question period later this week or next week. Remarks were made earlier today about ministers answering questions in a straightforward manner in order to ensure that the opposition do not keep debate going because they are not getting answers.
May I remind the minister that he, like some operations in his department, cannot continue to try and be both fish and fowl. We need to have a transportation system that is operated as a public utility, publicly owned and controlled. We do not want any of these half measures of transportation systems that are part private and part public, both trying to operate for profit, both trying to provide service which is better, and "never the twain shall meet".
The minister and the government must make up their minds one way or the other. They cannot continue trying to be half pregnant. It is either a publicly owned and operated transportation system, integrated and efficient, with service getting priority over profits, or it is an undertaking in the private sphere looking for all the fast bucks it can get. Even if the minister does not want to adopt all the solutions I am asking for, if he will agree to start off with CP Air Lines, we shall support him.


B. Keith Penner: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the minister would respond to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I was also hoping the hon. member would make his remarks a little shorter in order to give the minister a chance to reply. My questions are along the lines of those pursued by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. They have to do with the status of the freeze on branch line abandonment and on freight rates. I, too, would like to know how much money has been expended by the treasury in compensation for the freeze, and the rationale behind any payments made to the railways. I should like to know how much each company is receiving and what we may expect by the time the freeze expires at the end of the year. If the minister would reply to these questions, I might be able to continue.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I had the good fortune, last week, of meeting the ministers of transport for the western provinces; we discussed the problem of prices, which were frozen for some categories of goods, and also that of the railway companies which have also been frozen for a certain length of time, that is till the end of 1974.
In both cases, I said that this matter had yet to be decided by the federal cabinet who took the initial decisions. The matter will be taken up very soon, this week or next.
Unfortunately, I cannot tell the hon. member this evening whether prices will continue to be frozen or not.

October 23, 1974
Estimates
In any event, I believe we will soon reach a decision, because time is running out. The matter is on our agenda. [English]
I told the transport ministers of the west that they did not have to take a decision, because the first decision was taken by the federal government and not by the transport ministers of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. So we intend to take this decision, rightly or wrongly. At this moment I am not in a position to tell the hon. member exactly what we are going to do.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister answer the other question I asked him? How much money has been spent by the federal treasury in compensation for the freeze, and what was the rationale behind these payments? Further, could the minister give us some idea of the amounts paid to the individual railway companies?


Jean Marchand: It is very difficult for me to say what is the amount-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Evidemment.


Jean Marchand: Of course. If I were to put that question to the hon. gentleman, he would not know either. But if I compare that amount to what the right hon. member for Prince Albert had to pay when he decided to freeze the rates in 1959, I assure the hon. gentleman that there is not much difference. That is all I can say at this stage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister tell the committee what formula will be applied in the payment of the subsidy? How will the amount be established? Will the department simply accede to the request of the railways? Are there ongoing discussions on this question?


Jean Marchand: That is a fair question and a very difficult one. I should not like to give a reply which would not be honest. What the railways are asking is compensation for revenues which were forgone in consequence of the freeze. I must confess I have no criteria now on which to check exactly the amount for which they are asking.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A figure of $41 million was kicked around here last session. How was that figure arrived at?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A crystal-ball.


Jean Marchand: I know CN and CP claim we owe them about $41 million; $27 million to CN and $13 million to CP.


An hon. Member:: For what period?


Jean Marchand: For 1973. But if you asked me how they arrived at that amount, my answer would be that I don't know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure whether you have recognized me again, Madam Chairman. It was my understanding we were allowed 20 minutes. Have my 20 minutes expired?


B. Keith Penner: No. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville for one more question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise the committee the position of the Ministry of Transport with respect to giving consideration to truckers along the same lines as the consideration given to the railways since, in effect, when rail rates were frozen the freeze automatically applied to truckers' rates as well?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the hon. member is not dishonest, but he is putting to me a question that he knows I cannot answer. The truckers did not ask for any compensation. If he asks me how much money they think we owe them because of the freeze on freight rates, I do not think it is a fair debate at this stage.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Vegreville may put a last question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just one further question, Madam Chairman. Would the minister give the committee some enlightenment on the proposed changes to the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act which were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne? Is it the intention of the minister to proceed only with changes to the Railway Act to provide for compulsory disclosure, or are there other amendments to be considered?
Could the minister also give the committee some indication of the future of the Crowsnest freight rates and say whether in fact his department or the CTC have engaged in any cost studies on the question of the Crowsnest freight rates? It seems to me this is a question that is on the minds of at least the western Canadian members, and I would certainly appreciate the minister's giving the committee some assurance that the Crowsnest freight rates will not be tampered with.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member is not going to get an answer to that from me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: So that is your attitude to western Canada.


Jean Marchand: What do you want me to say?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You know this is important to the economy of western Canada. You were out in Calgary and promised us so much.


Jean Marchand: I never promised anything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a legitimate question that requires a legitimate answer.


Jean Marchand: Do you want to be serious?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am being serious.


Jean Marchand: You are not being serious. Let me tell the committee two things, if they will allow me
October 23, 1974

to do so. First, we have indicated that we are ready to amend the Railway Act, provided the House leaders of all parties agree, so we can get all the information from the railways on establishment of the freight rates. We promised to do that, and we are ready. If all House leaders tell me tomorrow they are ready to agree to this amendment, then we are ready.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is that all you are going to do?


Jean Marchand: Some may refuse for political reasons, but we are ready to amend the Railway Act so the railways can give us all the information on rates.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then why not introduce the bill?


Jean Marchand: Tell us first if you will agree to it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Transport has been making reference to certain proposals that have been put to the House leaders of the parties. Three of us are here now; the other one is somewhere else. I should like to know from my hon. friend from Peace River, and from the President of the Privy Council, when this matter was discussed among the House leaders. If we are having a discussion right now, then I would give my consent right away.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All stages, no debate.


Jean Marchand: I am sure there is no problem about this and that all House leaders will agree to an amendment of the Railway Act so we can get the information we want about the rates. Is the hon. member for Peace River opposing this?


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, my understanding of the agreement that we reached was that the government House leader would produce ministers and we would get, to use the usual expression, frank, fruitful and useful answers to questions that would be put. If this is not the case, if we are not able to get answers now, I think we might review the disposition of the committee proceedings and even consider postponing consideration of these estimates, if that is necessary, so that the minister can get all the answers.


Mr. Allard:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) on a point of order.


Eudore Allard: Madam Chairman, following what the minister said a while ago on the consent of the parties and House leaders, I should like to point out that the leader of our party is away and that I am taking his place.


B. Keith Penner: Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising on a point of order?
Estimates


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Madam Chairman. My point of order can be very simply put. As I understood the suggestion of the House leader of the Liberal Party, each member would be given 20 minutes. Some members wish to make speeches; others wish to ask questions. With the greatest respect, this procedure is new to many members here. Others are used to it. I looked at the clock when the hon. member for Vegreville rose, and although he put many questions he may now want to make further comments to the minister. With the greatest respect, I ask that you give him at least his full 20 minutes according to the rules governing the House when it is considering supply. The problem may be that you are looking at this committee of the whole as if it were a standing committee. I do not think the hon. member for Vegreville had his 20 minutes. He asked questions which the minister did not answer. I ask you to give him his full 20 minutes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Chairman, I am simply rising on a point of order to point out to the minister that I would appreciate getting just a few answers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Even one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For example, in my final submission I posed three specific questions. The minister tried to answer one question but avoided the other two. My other questions are these. First, I ask the minister to tell this committee and the country the position of the government respecting the Crowsnest freight rates, and to assure us that these rates will not be tampered with. Second, would the minister enlighten the committee on the amendments we can expect to the National Transportation Act?
May I also ask the minister, since this matter is referred to in the Speech from the Throne, what specific steps his department intends to take to facilitate the movement of grain this winter in order to avoid the chaotic conditions that we experienced during the peak grain moving season last winter. These are very simple questions, and if this committee is to serve any purpose members on this side of the House are entitled to straightforward answers.


B. Keith Penner: The Chair was under the impression that hon. members could speak for 20 minutes, not ask questions for 20 minutes. A number of members wish to participate, and if the hon. member intends asking questions for 20 minutes, other members will not be able to participate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the greatest respect, Madam Chairman, I suggest the hon. member for Vegreville could talk, not only for 20 minutes but for 20 hours about the failure of our transportation system. If he wishes to put questions to the minister instead of making a speech, it is because he is seeking the information we have not been able to obtain. Your Honour should not deny him this privilege under the arrangements made by the House leaders or under the rules governing committee of supply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, I think we are working according to an agreement, and it is really a matter of understanding what was agreed upon. My understanding is that an hon. member may use 20 minutes either making

October 23, 1974
Estimates
a speech or asking questions. I would refer you to the government House leader and to the other House leaders simply for your guidance. I do so with great respect. Perhaps they could indicate to you clearly what the understanding was, so as to remove any misunderstanding and to prevent your getting into an unfortunate position because of a misunderstanding.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right on.
Mr.Sharp: Madam Chairman, the arrangement made was to the effect that no member shall speak more than once on the estimates of any one department, but that does not mean a member cannot ask questions or that the minister cannot present a rebuttal. The arrangement does not suggest that members may ask questions for 20 minutes. In fact, that would be a very difficult rule to apply. Would the time include the time of reply by the minister to questions?


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes.
Mr.Sharp: If that is the interpretation, I have no objection, because then the hon. member would not have the opportunity of making a speech.


An hon. Member:: That's not so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On the point of order, Madam Chairman, I say very emphatically that I posed three or four questions to the Minister of Transport. I believed that was the purpose behind this type of arrangement. I understood we would get answers from the minister. I do not necessarily want to make a speech, but I should like him to give us some answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I raised three or four specific questions. I am sure the minister and his officials have a record of them. Now I would ask the minister to reply.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On the same point of order, Madam Chairman, I felt I was abiding by the agreement in taking up 20 minutes both in making a speech and asking questions. I hope the minister will rise and take whatever time is required to reply. He has not done so yet. Thank goodness the hon. member for Vegreville asked almost the same questions as I did, because the minister did not reply to mine. If the minister requires 40 minutes, we will give it to him.
With reference to another matter-this perhaps is more a question of privilege-when I asked the minister a specific question about the amount of money the government has spent in compensation respecting freight rates, there was no answer. When the hon. member for Vegreville asked virtually the same question, the minister came up with the figure of $57 million. I would ask the minister, now, whether it would be more like $137 million? Will he reply to that question?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Chairman, I intend to participate a little later, but before I do I should like to have the ground rules straight. It is my understanding that each member may speak for 20 minutes and it is up to him to decide whether he will ask questions, make remarks or put for-

ward a combination of both. Is that the understanding of the government House leader?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, I think that is quite reasonable. The purpose was to make sure that no member used up too much time to the exclusion of others. But it is up to the minister to decide which questions he is going to answer; that is his privilege.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let's have the minister answer.


An hon. Member:: We are not conducting a question period; we are passing funds.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would simply like to repeat the questions I put to the minister. If he refuses to answer, the record will so indicate. Perhaps that will illustrate the mess his whole department is in, and why. I do not think he takes his job seriously. I think we have had too much evasiveness and flippancy. If the minister is not prepared to accept his responsibility, there is no point wasting our time putting questions to him.


An hon. Member:: Bring back Herb Gray.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: By comparison, even he would be sweetness and light.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Chairman, I see it is twelve minutes to nine. I will be finished by eight minutes after nine. I should like to start by referring to the Canada Shipping Act. I read the following from the Canada Gazette, part II, volume 107, No. 18:
Registration
SOR/73-537 12 September, 1973 Canada Shipping Act Search Initiator Buoy Regulations PC. 1973-2700 11 September, 1973
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation ol the Minister of Transport, pursuant to paragraph 400(1) (c) of the Canada Shipping Act, is pleased hereby to make the annexed Regulations Respecting Search Initiator Buoys on Ships, effective 1st July, 1974.
I ask the minister what he knows about these regulations, imposed by himself, and why is it that July 1, 1974, has passed and the regulations are still not in effect?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I think first I should answer the question put by the hon. member for Vegreville. The first question concerned the Crowsnest pass rates. Nobody indicated-certainly I did not-that we were going to modify that part. If ever we intend to do that, hon. members will have a formal proposal before them. Up till now, no one in my department, and certainly not in my office, indicated that we should modify the Crowsnest pass rates.
Having regard to the amendments to the National Transportation Act, of course, we intend to bring about some modification. I have discussed this matter with the ministers of transport from the west and I think we are close to agreement. That does not mean the problem will be solved in that way. These amendments will have to be brought before this House and discussed here. There are

October 23, 1974

problems, as hon. members know, and we are ready to discuss them here.
The third question had reference to boxcars. As hon. members know, we have instituted a monitoring system to find out exactly where the cars are, whether we have enough cars and how they are being moved. We had a conference last May in order to discover how many cars we actually had, if the number was sufficient and if the railways had plans to build enough cars to meet the need, we know very well that if the decision is to build more cars, it will be impossible to have them in service by December, January or February, and it would be childish to think otherwise. I think it will be perhaps a couple of years before we finally have all the cars we need.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the minister's reply, and I appreciate the fact that he reviewed what the Ministry of Transport has instituted as of last May. The throne speech indicates that steps will be taken to facilitate grain handling this winter. What steps are referred to there?


Jean Marchand: As you know, through the Canadian Wheat Board we decided to have a certain number of hopper cars built. They will not be ready next winter; there is no doubt about that. If the hon. member can think of a way to have those cars delivered next winter perhaps he would tell me and I will apply it. There is no way to do it. We have given orders and have voted the money so that we will have the hopper cars we need to move the grain.


An hon. Member:: So you do not intend to do anything this winter?


Jean Marchand: We have done everything we could.


An hon. Member:: What else will you do for this winter?


Jean Marchand: What do you think I should
do?


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta will not be charged in respect of his time with the fact that the minister is two members behind in his answers. The hon. member is allowed 20 minutes, and I hope that what has been going on will not be charged against the time of my hon. f-iend.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I am willing to give them all the time they need, even until 3 o'clock tomorrow morning. But one thing for sure, I will not allow them to play a game of politics for the sake of playing a game. That is for sure.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Chairman, I do not wish to play politics. However, I asked a question of the minister a few moments ago and still would like to have an answer. I asked about the search initiators. I read a statement from the Canada Gazette. I would like an answer. What does the
Estimates
minister know about the regulation which was supposed to be in effect for July 1 this year, and which still is not in effect? The minister has answered three other questions and I still have not had an answer to that question. I wish the minister would give me an answer. If he cannot tell me then he should say so and I will tell him all about it.


Jean Marchand: There are certain technical problems which we did not overcome. We are trying to solve them and will consider the situation.


John Douglas Reynolds: I find it very hard to believe that the government has come across some technicalities it does not know how to solve. There are sufficient people in the gallery to solve the total problems of Canada. In Canada there are 1,460 tugs that are five tons or more. In the province of British Columbia there are 824. There are 430 in Canada of 15 tons or more and 170 of these are in British Columbia. I know the minister is aware that since 1958 there have been 41 wooden tugs sunk in Canada involving the loss of six lives. Since 1958 38 steel tugs have gone down involving the loss of 34 lives.
A total of 40 lives have been lost in the tugboat industry in Canada. This is one of the reasons the guild and the tugboat association have been pressing so hard to get this regulation in order to save the lives of others. I cannot understand the minister saying there is a technicality involved in this. Lucas Marine in British Columbia built a buoy which met all the qualifications of the regulation. They went into production on the basis of the fact that the government passed a regulation which was to be effective in July this year.
Because the government, through one of its people in the department, stated this is delayed for six months this company is sitting in British Columbia with buoys it cannot sell. It has nowhere to sell them because the major companies do not want to become involved in this expenditure in these circumstances. The president of the guild has demanded that the government put this regulation into effect for the safety of the tugboat operators and to save lives. While the government will not allow this regulation to come into effect we are risking lives.
In British Columbia this year a tug went down with a loss of three lives. I do not blame the minister for this. It is not his fault that the tug went down. However, if this tugboat had had the search initiator buoy on board it might have been found sooner, and certainly those lives could have been saved. I cannot understand why the minister does not know more about this serious problem.
I know representatives of the guild are planning to come to Ottawa sometime next week to plead with the minister to bring this regulation into effect immediately, and I hope he will say he will do that. Perhaps tonight he will stand up and tell this House and the country that, for the great benefit of the men and women working on tugboats, he will ensure that the regulation which the government passed will come into force immediately, especially in view of the fact that its taking effect is overdue since July 1. This is a very serious problem, but I have one other issue that I must mention before my time is up and I know that there are other members who have important questions.
678

October 23, 1974
Estimates
A major problem in British Columbia is the new air route allocations between Air Canada and CP Air. I know that the minister is certainly familiar with this issue because he not only has had representations from me but also from members of his own party. Has he considered the representations that have been made to him, and is he considering any changes whatsoever in the air route allocations that he made this past summer?


Jean Marchand: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


John Douglas Reynolds: I am very disappointed to hear that the answer is in the negative because I know that not only members on this side of the House but many members on the minister's side of the House will be extremely disappointed with that answer because it affects western Canada drastically and in particular it affects my riding where 1,400 jobs will be lost. I do not think that the minister has looked at the issue as closely as he should have, or listened to the people in his party, particularly those from our province of British Columbia who were elected to his party and who have told him what are the problems out there.
There is one other issue that I would like to touch upon with regard to the airport area. I am wondering whether the minister could advise me if he is planning to take over the one remaining area, in the Sea Island area in Richmond, which is where the Vancouver international airport is located. The area is called Burkeville. Can the minister tell me whether there are plans to take over the Burkeville area, and could he advise whether he has put any pressure on his cabinet colleagues to try to settle the problem of the people who are still living in the area that is to be expropriated and who have not been able to receive any final confirmation from the government? Can the minister explain anything on this matter?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member is as well aware as I am of what is going on there, of the inquiry that has been instituted and the study that is being carried out. I hope that as soon as we have the results, we can make a decision. It is a very important decision. Under his pressure, and the pressure of other groups, we delayed any decision that we were going to make, so I think he should be fair enough to await the results of all those inquiries before we make a decision.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have not been in the Chair for the first hour of this sitting but I should like to obtain some direction from the committee at this time.
On looking at the suggestions that were made by the President of the Privy Council I read on the second page that it is the agreement with respect to the debate that each member will be restricted to one twenty minute speech in committee on each department, but that this restriction would not apply in the case of direct questioning or answering, nor would a minister be prevented from rebutting points made during discussion.
The point I want to bring to the attention of the committee is whether I am to interpret this suggestion, or any other chairman of the committee is to interpret it as

allowing a member who does not take up the twenty minutes allotted to him for a speech to compensate for that time by a twenty minute questioning period. I should like some kind of direction from the committee because I should not like to limit hon. members, but there are so many who wish to ask questions that by the time we reach 10.30 p.m. we might have to extend the hours to satisfy everybody.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think that we tried to clarify this a few minutes ago. I suggested to your predecessor in the chair that we were trying to follow an agreement rather than putting the Chairman on the spot where he would have to make a rather difficult ruling with regard to time. I think I am interpreting the President of the Privy Council correctly when I say that he agreed with the suggestion that the spirit of the rule was that the member speaking and asking questions could take up the full twenty minutes allowed him, provided the minister's time was not counted in replying. In other words, what difference does it make to the committee whether a member takes twenty minutes speaking or twenty minutes asking questions? I see the President of the Privy Council nodding his head. I think this was the understanding that he affirmed a few minutes ago.


Gérald Laniel: The reason why I raise the point is that I see so many members wishing to rise. If the Chair is asked to add the time allocated to the minister for replies it would easily add up to twenty minutes each time, and I see members from other parties wishing to ask questions. This afternoon we had a difficulty with the hon. member for Moncton whose impression had been that he was forgotten in the House.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. I am sorry to have to say this but I have the impression that what is happening now is similar to the performance of Committee of the whole in 1968, and I, as a member of the House, do not remember any specific rule changes being made dealing with committee in supply. That being the case, any member of the House of Commons rising to question a minister naturally expects answers. If his allotted time is twenty minutes, then he has that time to ask the questions he has in mind. Of course we hope that we can get some answers from the minister.
You can understand our frustation in dealing with this point of order with a government which abondoned committee of the Whole House in supply as far back as 1968 because of members of the opposition persisting in wishing questions to be answered precisely, and ministers failing to do so. This proved only one thing, namely, that the government is totally incompetent. That is one of the reasons that the Committee of the Whole House in supply was scrapped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not wish to disagree with the hon. member for Edmonton East but I must say that in those years there was no time limitation.


William Skoreyko: There certainly was.
October 23, 1974


Gérald Laniel: It was the House that decided that the debate on this and other departments would take up so much time. So the Chairman is only trying to be fair to all hon. members and to make sure that we do not have to extend our time as we did this afternoon.


William Skoreyko: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the government is really serious in having this House examine the estimates that are before the House now, then they will allot the appropriate amount of time to discuss them.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member is putting the Chair in a very difficult situation. He is mixing the Chair with the government. I am only asking for advice from members of the Committee. I will recognize the hon. member who had the floor as there does not seem to be a solution to this problem at this time, and I will not continue further on this point.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On this point of order, Mr. Chairman, before you came to the Chair the President of the Privy Council agreed that it did not matter whether members on this side took twenty minutes asking questions or twenty minutes making speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Or both.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or both. Having had that agreement from the President of the Privy Council, let us continue asking for information from the minister.


An hon. Member:: Don't waste the time of the
committee.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It is for the Chair to make a decision, or at least seek the consent and understanding of the whole committee, not just of one member in committee.


An hon. Member:: May we have your ruling?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, we are not asking-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With great respect-


John Napier Turner: Oh, we have a good one tonight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have a good one tonight all right. I have been trying to make it clear to the Chairman that we clarified this question about 15 minutes ago. There is no disagreement between any of the House leaders on what is involved.
I am trying to control myself but it is pretty difficult in these circumstances. There are a lot of smart alecks in the House tonight. I have been in legislatures for about 25 years and I have never seen a farce such as this-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Estimates


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have got so far along now and we have an hour and a quarter left. Can we have an agreement in this House now that we shall make no more speeches and simply ask questions?


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Gerald William Baldwin: All right.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at the risk of not being able to do what I rise to do, I must try anyway.


An hon. Member:: It has never inhibited you before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to deal with this procedural point in the simplest possible terms. Surely it was understood that each member who gets the floor has it only once for a department, and has it for not more than 20 minutes. If he uses all the 20 minutes to make a speech, that is it. If he asks questions, gets answers and asks more questions, he is still limited to a total of 20 minutes.
The only problem I see in this is if the minister, in answering the questions, abuses the honourable member's position by taking too much time, then I would say it is up to the Chair whether to give that member a bit more time. Surely it is not too complicated. It seems to me that there are other factors that have caused trouble tonight, but surely this matter is not complicated. Each member who is given the floor on one of the departments is allowed not more than 20 minutes. He can use it all for a speech, partly a speech and questions, or all for questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: If hon. members agree with this interpretation of the suggestion that was made today as to the procedure of this committee, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that parliament lives again. I am just going to condense all my remarks. I know I must have ten minutes left after all the interruptions but I will not take more than one minute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite cannot even give us that time; they have to take it up by pounding their desks.
I want to ask the minister two simple questions-simple questions being asked of a simple government. First, when are these studies going to be completed on the Vancouver International Airport that have been going on since before I was elected in 1972? The minister should be able to give an answer.
Second, why has the government postponed implementing those regulations? People could be killed because those
28305-441/!

October 23, 1974
Estimates
buoys are not on the boats and tugs. Will the minister guarantee to this House that these regulations, which the government passed and were to be put into effect on July 1, and that tugboat men and women want now, will go into effect immediately?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the regulations are in effect. There is no doubt about that.


John Douglas Reynolds: It is a lie.


Jean Marchand: They are in effect.


John Douglas Reynolds: It is a lie.


Jean Marchand: Okay, what about the other one?


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege I want to read a copy of a wire sent to Captain G. Morris, head of the Guild of Tugboat Owners.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The newspaper?


John Douglas Reynolds: Why don't you keep your mouth shut? I guarantee not too many members from British Columbia will stand up on this issue, but the tugboat owners will come down here wanting to see the problem solved.
Mr. Chairman, here is the telegram:
After serious consideration of all facts involved and view expressed the ministry is taken under review the extent of the application of the search initiator buoy regulations to tugs of more than five and not more than fifteen gross and this will be the subject of a circular letter to be forwarded within the next few days. It is considered that the dictate of safety require that existing regulations continue to be written to tugs of more than fifteen tons gross.
It is signed by R. Illing-I do not know who that is- MOT, Ottawa. I think that telegram proves that the minister is mistaken in what he just said. Those regulations are not in force. I am asking the minister why they are not in force and when they are going to be in force?


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Bail him out.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. minister rising on a question of privilege?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Just participating in the debate, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Lee:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and with all due respect to the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta, as a member from British Columbia I have worked very closely all this time with members of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild on the west coast and made representations to the Department of Transport. They are well aware of the problem that we brought to their attention. As a matter of fact I just spoke to Captain Arnie Davis who is the Secretary-Treasury, and he indicated to me that the regulations are in force on the west coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No more headlines. It is a knockout.


Gérald Laniel: I should warn the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta about the disadvantage of raising arguments as a question of privilege. The hon. member might differ with the minister on all this and the answer which he got-I do not know any of the facts-proves that there is mainly a difference of opinion or interpretation. The hon. member who has the floor should use the floor to make his views known.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I did not interrupt these proceedings on a question of privilege. It was the hon. member for Vancouver East.


An hon. Member:: No, you did.


John Douglas Reynolds: I am sorry, but hon. members on the other side must realize I was using my 20 minutes and I was interrupted. I would say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that if he has been involved with this problem very seriously he must have had discussions with Captain Griff Morris, the Vice-President of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. I had a meeting with him last Saturday. He pointed out this problem to me and said these regulations are not in force, and are not being enforced. I do not know where the hon. member got his information. All I can say is that he is mistaken.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Chairman, since spirits are beginning to run high, I would like to move from the Pacific to the Gulf of St. Lawrence where the water is somewhat colder.
Last year, I think, I asked the Minister of Transport about continued icebreaking service in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to provide safety for ships sailing the gulf and the area of Rimouski, and moving upstream from Quebec City to Montreal. At that time, the minister informed me that the question was under consideration and that a permanent icebreaker would be put in service, probably in 1974.
Is the minister in a position to inform the House whether a permanent icebreaker will indeed be put in service in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this winter, specially in the Rimouski, Les Escoumins and Saguenay areas, to provide increased safety for ships navigating those areas during winter months?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Does the minister intend to reply?


Eudore Allard: Does the minister want to answer my question? Did he understand it?


Jean Marchand: I did not fully understand the question, Mr. Chairman, because I was reading a document. I apologize, I thought he was talking about the Vancouver matter.
If the hon. member would like to repeat his question, I would be delighted to answer him if I can.


Eudore Allard: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the question seems to me to be easy to understand. Last year, I asked that a permanent icebreaker be put in service in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Rimouski, Les Escoumins and Saguenay areas, and the minister replied that the matter was under
:



October 23, 1974

consideration and that eventually, in 1974-75, a permanent icebreaker would actually be put in service in those areas. Now there, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether there will eventually be an icebreaker next winter to offer relative safety for ships?


Jean Marchand: There are icebreakers in service in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as far as Quebec City and even Montreal throughout winter. Now, are there enought of them? Our problem comes from the fact that we are short of icebreakers. As a matter of fact, a number of them which are being built will help maintain navigation on the St. Lawrence River. However, I could not assure the hon. member that we will never be without icebreakers between Rimouski, Gaspe and Matane.


Eudore Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman.
Can the minister advise the House whether there are any icebreakers being built at the present time?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are two of them. There is also a project for the construction of a super icebreaker which should enter service within the next few years.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, for a while I did not know whether I would be able to speak tonight. I am certainly pleased to see such a large gallery. I did not think they would all turn out to hear someone from Churchill speak.
We have gone from the east coast to the west. We are now going into central Manitoba. I do not know whether many people realize there is an inland port called Churchill. The last ship of the season left Churchill at high tide approximately two hours ago. That was the twentieth ship to have visited Churchill this year.
Within the next few days the minister will probably issue a statement that some 22 million bushels of grain were hauled out of Churchill, an amount that is almost unsurpassed. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that Churchill is capable of handling between 10 and 14 million bushels a month from July 15 to October 15. The reason the authorities do not handle that amount of grain is that they simply do not have the funds to keep the port in operating condition.
We see that approximately $12.5 million will be spent over the next four years to upgrade the port of Churchill. I can assure hon. members that this will only look after the maintenance of that port. What is the department doing to upgrade the facilities in Churchill so that at least 40 million bushels can be stored or shipped through that port? It is a very vital line of transportation in central Canada and the central United States. Can the minister give some answer to that?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member an answer. The hon. member says we are only doing what is necessary to maintain the port of Churchill, keeping it open and operating efficiently. I regret to say that is not true. The government of Manitoba knows we are spending more than $12 million to improve the port of Churchill. At this moment the government of Manitoba is asking us to re-direct investment in order to
Estimates
increase even more the efficiency of the port. We agree, and we are doing that. Therefore, what the hon. member has said is not quite true.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, as an election promise the government said it would revamp the total grain handling system. I do not know if the minister knows where Churchill is, but it is one of the most important grain handling facilities in central Canada. The minister met with western ministers in Saskatoon. I have here a statement entitled "Progress towards the improvement of the port of Churchill and the development of the port of Prince Rupert".
I wish to refer to the blue book detailing the estimates. I see that for the port of Churchill, approximately $2 million is being spent. That is strictly maintenance money. How is the port of Churchill going to be developed, or is it just going to sit as it has for many years?
Very important also is the fact that the rail facilities into Churchill are such that there have been many train wrecks on the line. This holds up ships coming into the port. I understand the transport committee has promised $20 million for rebuilding the railway from Gillam to Churchill. Can the minister state where this is in the estimates and from where it will come?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is under normal CNR expenditures. What we said we would do for Churchill, we will do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When?


Jean Marchand: We are doing it right now. When were you last in Churchill?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I might tell the minister I have been there many, many times when he has not been there.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, a few days ago I had discussions with a responsible minister from Manitoba, Mr. Evans. He agreed entirely with the procedures we are following. He is keenly interested in the development of the port of Churchill, and thinks we are making the right moves. He would, of course, like the process to be accelerated. We agreed entirely, and I must confess the provincial authorities seemed to be as interested as is the hon. member in the development of the port of Churchill. But they do not believe we can get rid of the ice 12 months a year. They know there are limitations, and we are trying to work within those limitations.


Cecil Morris Smith: I am not really interested in trying to keep Churchill open for 12 months a year either. All I am saying is that the facilities which are there now ought to be utilized to their full capacity. What I know is happening is this: they are trying to develop the shipping of other commodities through Churchill and trying to stay away from grain. Yet the port of Churchill is ideal for the shipment of grain. The storage facilities are ideal. There is very little dampness up there; once it turns cold in the fall it stays cold right through the winter.
I sometimes sit and listen to people talk about the difficulties being experienced with the handling of grain

October 23, 1974
Estimates
on the east coast and the west coast. I can assure hon. members that in Churchill there is no need to worry about space in which to store grain. It is a big country up there. Also, grain need not all be moved up there in a great rush in the summer time. Grain could move there all through the winter, and then it could be stockpiled. If this were done we would not run into the trouble we experienced this summer when ships were lying in harbour waiting to load, and there were insufficient stocks on hand in Churchill though cars were backed up for 100 miles on the Hudson Bay Kailway. If these stocks had been moved up during the winter, supplies could have been built up and there would have been no difficulty whatsoever.
When the minister and his officials are talking about revamping the grain transport and handling system, let them not leave the port of Churchill out, because the port of Churchill is an important part of the economy of the north. The federal government has invested a lot of money in Churchill to revitalize the community. What is needed in an economic base to support the facilities which are presently there, and we should never forget that the presence of grain handling facilities in the north constitutes an ideal situation.
Regarding the railway I would suggest that one way of alleviating some of the tie-ups in the area would be to construct a passing rail between Gillam and Churchill. At present when trains are up to 155 cars long, it is impossible for the train to leave Churchill if there is a train going through Gillam. I hope some of the $20 million earmarked for the expansion of this railway will be spent in this way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I propose to ask questions on certain specific matters in the course of my remarks, and I hope the minister will have an opportunity to answer them without getting involved in too much speech making. I am satisfied that now the hon. gentleman has had the opportunity of spending a couple of days in Saskatoon, with all those clear skies and fresh air, his thinking will be at its most acute and that, flanked as he is by two assistants from Saskatchewan, he will be able to answer my questions without hesitation.
We in western Canada are concerned about the reference in the Speech from the Throne to measures to speed up the movement of grain. However, the minister did not tell us about any concrete steps which are being taken or which are anticipated on the part of the government in respect to the more efficient movement of grain this winter. He did say that the construction of hopper cars was contemplated or, perhaps, that it was under way, but added that it would be around two years before they were delivered.
I directed a question on this subject to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board asking him what specific measures the government had in mind, but the hon. gentleman did not elaborate in the course of his reply. Thus I ask the Minister of Transport if he would give us an example, possibly just one example, of a step in the area of transportation which is currently being taken to facilitate the movement of grain this winter?


Jean Marchand: The only way in which I can answer that kind of question is by saying we shall do our utmost to ensure the movement of grain this winter. I
am no more in control of the future than is the hon. member, or even his leader. Many things can happen, but we shall work very hard to satisfy the farmers in the west. That is all I can say. Anything else would be either a lie or hypothetical.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: To carry on with my 20 minute question period, may I bring to the attention of the minister the fact that according to authoritative evidence the snowplows used by the Canadian National are at least 30 years old and require replacement. Again I ask the minister whether there is even remote consideration being given to making any funds available for the purpose of providing equipment, in particular for replacing the snowplows to deal with the inevitable snowfalls which will be experienced in the course of deliveries to the west coast this winter? Has a request been made to the railways to consider upgrading this equipment?


Jean Marchand: I presume the hon. member reads the newspapers in the same way that I do, and I know that the CNR has ordered over $1 billion worth of rolling stock and equipment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Any snowplows in that equipment?


Jean Marchand: I hope there are. If they don't do it I think we shall have to do it through this corporation we announced in the Speech from the Throne.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: During the past three years when our markets have been exceptionally good-something for which we are all grateful-there has been delay for one reason or another in the delivery of grain because of the poor quality of the tracks and the inability of some of them to carry the rolling stock needed. Is the minister in a position to become involved, either by making representations to the railways or otherwise, in the solution of these difficulties? Can a statement be made with respect to the replacement of rails to bring them at least up to an acceptable standard?


Jean Marchand: I can tell the hon. member that I have been making representations to the railways for a few months now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: May I turn to matters of policy within the department as they relate to air transport, particularly in western Canada. I should like to make particular reference to the province of Saskatchewan, part of which I have the honour to represent. I should like to ask the minister about a press release following his meeting with the western transportation ministers in Saskatoon, who requested the minister to allow greater involvement and input by the provinces in regard to a bilateral air transportation agreement.
Would the minister consider instituting an international air service from the province of Saskatchewan? It seems to me that the province of Saskatchewan would welcome a bilateral air agreement so it could have air connection with the state of North Dakota, and with the city of Minot in particular.

October 23, 1974


Jean Marchand: I did discuss the question of negotiations with foreign countries regarding an air agreement with the ministers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta. Our position was that it is difficult to integrate the provinces into the process of negotiation, but that we do try to take care of their interests. All of us in this House represent Canada, and the government does try to take care of the interests of each province. If we are not doing that, then perhaps we are going in the wrong direction.
With respect to the last agreement reached with the United States I am aware that Saskatchewan was not entirely satisfied, and we did make some modifications. On the other hand, Alberta was satisfied. There were some urgent needs there which had to be met.
I think the best way to deal with the matter is to have a meeting of ministers before negotiations commence, but once the negotiations are started I think the matter must be left to the federal government. I do not see how there can be any provincial involvement at that stage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thank the minister for that answer and I should just like to make one or two other brief inquiries concerning my province. May I ask the minister whether or not the government has given consideration to the great need in the province of Saskatchewan for development of air facilities, particularly in the northern part of the province? Once again we are embarking upon a very significant and substantial degree of uranium exploration and mining in the northern part of the province, and this calls for adequate air transportation to service the people of that region. There is a great need for navigational aids and air transport facilities to man this new industry in northern Saskatchewan.
The fact of the matter is that at the present time it is expedient to use the service from the city of Edmonton and Fort McMurray in Alberta. However, I think it is logical to request the minister to improve air transport facilities in the province of Saskatchewan. Will he give the committee an undertaking at this time that adequate consideration will be given to this rather modest request?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member is aware of what we are doing at the present time. I was in Saskatoon yesterday or the day before, I do not remember which, and some very substantial improvements are being made at Lac La Ronge. We are concerned about improving air transport facilities in Saskatchewan. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is satisfied with what we are doing in that province.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of whether I am satisfied but of whether the people of Saskatchewan are satisfied. I ask the minister to consider improving facilities north of Lac La Ronge with a view to servicing commercially this particular area of the province.
I will conclude my remarks after two more questions to the minister respecting items relating to the province of Saskatchewan. Would the government give consideration to establishing an international airport within the province, something we do not presently have? All that is required is the provision of around-the-clock customs
Estimates
facilities, not a substantial undertaking. Since several airports are being renovated it seems to me now is an appropriate time to establish an international airport with around-the-clock customs facilities.
In conjunction with that would the minister consider making representations to Air Canada or to the CNR, as the case may be, to provide air freight service to Saskatoon? It seem to me that this kind of service should be provided to a province that is located in the heart of western Canada.


Jean Marchand: I am sure the hon. gentleman understands that international airports can only be established by agreement between two countries, such as the United States and Canada. Air lines must be prepared to fly to those airports. In my home town, Quebec city, which is the capital of Quebec, no international airlines want to serve the airport there. Even if an agreement were reached with the United States or with Europe that Quebec City should be on an international route, no air line would be interested in flying DC-8's or 747's to Quebec city. So there would be no point in extending the runway to enable 747's to land at Quebec city. The hon. member sees that I have a problem very similar to his.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Chairman, the city of Quebec is a great city, but in Saskatoon there are people who want to fly direct to the United States. This is why we would like the minister to establish an international airport in the province. Once he gets over the first hurdle of reaching an agreement, the second hurdle will be cleared very easily.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have a few questions for the minister which I think he can answer quite briefly, and perhaps I will have one or two comments to make after he is finished. The first question is essentially the same one I asked today during the question period, to which I did not get an answer. It relates to a letter sent out on October 9, 1974, by Diane Waller, the minister's research assistant. It states in part:
Last year, the CTC's research branch carried out a thorough study of transportation services in the area and came to the conclusion that rail passenger services were not supportable by the population and that the preferred method of travel would be an improved rationalized bus service, a possible link to the existing main line passenger trains between London and Toronto.
The letter continues that "one primary candidate area" for replacement of the railway passenger service with bus services would be southwestern Ontario and it states that such action would be "in the national interest" and "should be encouraged and financially supported by the federal government".
My question is: did the minister authorize that letter to be sent?


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. gentleman told me he did not get an answer this afternoon. I think I gave him an answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What was the answer?


Jean Marchand: I am supposed to meet with Mr. Rose.

October 23, 1974
Estimates


Henry Perrin Beatty: Oh, for heavens sake! You have to be kidding. That was not the question I asked the minister. I asked him whether he authorized that letter to be sent by Mrs. Waller. Was it sent out under his authority?


Mr.   De Bane@: Would you be kind enough to table the document?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would be delighted to table the letter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Do you think he is making it up?


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. There is no requirement for the hon. member to table the document.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I have received a request and I would be glad to accede to it if I have unanimous consent to table the letter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: I would remind hon. members that to do so would be entirely out of order. If we were to allow hon. members to table documents every day we would have a tremendous problem just picking them up. In any event this is not in order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have an answer to my question. Did the minister authorize that letter to be sent? Surely the minister does not have to ask his deputy minister whether he authorized the letter.


An hon. Member:: Let's hear the answer.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and let him answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I just want to support the request for an answer. This is the point I was making this afternoon. It is obvious from the way the government behaves that its ministers are not responsible. They do not respond to questions asked in the House. The government House leader said here tonight that we could ask questions and it is for the minister to decide which he will answer. I want to know whether we are to get answers, or whether this is a joke.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Those fellows in the back can make as much noise as they like, but we want to know whether the minister is going to answer.


Jean Marchand: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would not mind this coming from anybody else but the Leader of the Opposition, because he surely knows from his vast experience what it is to run a department with about 100,000 persons involved. To ask me on the floor of the House whether I sent a letter and what was the reply is not fair.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the minister wants to say that he would like to check this out, I am sure the hon. member will accept that.


Jean Marchand: 


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There are a lot of smart alecks behind the minister. We want to know the answer, and we are very serious about this.


Jean Marchand: You are right. If the Leader of the Opposition asks me to check if I did send the letter I will check that, or find out if I sent it or somebody else sent it under my name, or under someone else's name. I am ready to do the research and give an answer to the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When are you going to do it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if perhaps the page could take a copy of the letter across to the minister in order that he might see if he sent it? After I asked the question this afternoon did the minister not bother to consult with his staff to get an answer?


An hon. Member:: What were you doing between six and eight?


An hon. Member:: Will you answer that?


Jean Marchand: That is not what you asked me to do this afternoon.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I asked for an answer, and if the minister was serious enough I am sure he would have checked.


Jean Marchand: Would you allow me, Sir, to give you an answer tomorrow or the day after?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Certainly, if you assure me I will get the answer.


Jean Marchand: Then let us not continue to take up the time of the House.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Why did the minister not answer in that way before, rather than evading it?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you learn a little sense?


Henry Perrin Beatty: My next question relates to the third part of the study by the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of southwestern Ontario passenger service. Has the minister released report number three?


Jean Marchand: Do you have it now?


Robert Elgin McKinley: You have had it since February.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is it the intention of the minister to answer, Mr. Chairman?


B. Keith Penner: The minister has the opportunity to answer and it is up to him to decide whether he will reply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is the whole point. The minister has been asked a perfectly simple question, whether he has released the report. If he does not know the answer and would undertake to get the information I am sure that is perfectly satisfactory. Surely if the minister is not going to answer perfectly straightforward questions, that is

I!

October 23, 1974

another matter. We want to know whether this is a serious procedure or a farce.


Jean Marchand: I think the Leader of the Official Opposition is right. I should look up the information and give him an answer.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you do so?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Has the minister yet sent the report to the affected members of parliament, the provincial members and the municipal councils?


Jean Marchand: I don't know.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Will the minister answer the question, or does he need more time to check it?


Jean Marchand: Yes, certainly before 10.30.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He said "yes".


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, several times the minister and his officials have made reference to a tri-level conference which was to be held in Ontario to discuss the problems of passenger transportation, including the first report of the CTC suggesting that "The three reports are to provide a basis for discussions at a tri-level governmental conference to be held early in 1974, at which, it is hoped, a definition of policy with regard to public transportation in midwestern Ontario-Bruce will be achieved. "When is that meeting scheduled for, Mr. Chairman?


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, sir. I am at fault as I did not listen to the question. Will you repeat it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The question I asked was when is the tri-level conference, at which this report is supposed to be discussed, scheduled?


Jean Marchand: The tri-level conference is not organized by the Department of Transport but by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. If you want to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs when the tri-level conference is to be organized I am sure he will provide you with that information.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if I pose my questions to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs he would give me better answers than those I get from the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Apparently the minister who is responsible for transportation policy does not have the foggiest idea as to when these discussions are to take place. I would ask the minister whether he has read report number three?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I regret it but this is strictly a narrow; political attitude.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh, oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Estimates


An hon. Member:: You are being railroaded, Jean.


Jean Marchand: With that kind of a smile you will never win an election. The problem is that in the field of transportation the federal government is involved, the provincial government is involved, and the municipalities are involved. So if it is desired to have what we call a tri-partite meeting this must be organized by the Department of Urban Affairs.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not what I asked. Have you read the report?


Jean Marchand: No, I have not. Have you?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, is the minister telling us that he has had this report since it was prepared in February, 1974, and delivered to him, and since that time he has not yet read the report?


Jean Marchand: I did receive the report.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Did you read it?


Jean Marchand: That is none of your business.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, the minister is making a mockery of the proceedings of this House. He already indicated he has not read the report. He has had it since February, 1974, and has sat on it since then.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it would be childish in this House to mention all the reports I read and those I do not read. If you have some time to spare, come to my office at eight o'clock in the morning and I will give you material to read for hours and hours.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What the minister is saying now is that he does not know whether he has read the report, or perhaps he does not care. That certainly is typical of his attitude. I am wondering whether he has discussed the report with his own officials, and whether he is satisfied with the methodology used in the survey?


Jean Marchand: The report is being discussed with officials of the Ontario government at all levels. It is to be discussed by Mr. Rose and myself.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not the question. I asked the minister whether he is satisfied with the methodology of the report. Does he feel it was fairly and competently prepared, and that the conclusions it draws are justified?


Jean Marchand: I know the hon. gentleman knows all these answers. I do not have all the answers, I regret to say.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Does the minister have any of them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Rose does not have all those answers either.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I would hope he would have some answers which would be better than what the minister has been giving us so far. This survey, which was taken of more

October 23, 1974
Estimates
than 1,200 families in the area, was released to the minister in February, 1974, and he has yet to release the report to the public.
The study was supposed to have been used as a basis for tri-level discussions. The minister has yet to make the report available to the federal members of parliament from the area, or to the provincial members of parliament from the area, or to the municipal councils in the area. He has not yet read the report.


Jean Marchand: Maybe the hon. gentleman would tell us whose report it is.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, it was prepared by the Canadian Transport Commission. If the minister cannot get his hands on it I could lend him my copy.


Jean Marchand: Do you think I control the Canadian Transport Commission?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The report at page nine states:
In a letter sent April 3, 1973, to the Hon. E. J. Benson, President of the Canadian Transport Commission, the minister referred to expressions of concern by the public and members of parliament that public transport services in the region were inadequate or in some cases non-existent, and requested that the commission, in cooperation with provincial authorities, undertake a review of the situation.
Is it not established procedure that when a minister personally requests that a report be made the report is made available to him?


Jean Marchand: May I shed some light here. I am told by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs that on Friday he will meet with Mr. Rhodes Irving on this report and start the study in order to find a solution. Perhaps some day the Minister of Transport will be invited, but for the time being I am out of the picture.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister has been out of the picture for the whole of the two years that I have been here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is worth knowing about this report. It was prepared at the request of the minister for him. The minister has either refused or been incapable of answering any of the questions I have asked him. I want to make some general comments briefly with respect to this report. The report is a fallacious document. It was designed in such a way that it discriminates against railway passenger service in the area and is in favour of bus passenger service. It is a piece of flim flam.
The report was incompetently prepared. It asks such questions of respondents as whether they would rate comparatively the convenience of arrival and departure times of business and trains. Considering that there have not been any trains in the area for four years, it is hardly relevant for them to be asked for a judgment on departure and arrival times. It also asks for comparative judgments with respect to keeping door to door travel time to a minimum.
It is interesting to note that the report itself shows that fully half of the people in the region who were consulted live within five miles of a bus service, but that three quarters of them are 25 miles or more from train service.

How are they to respond to such a question, and how are they to respond to a question about keeping costs to a minimum for travel from door to door if it requires a person to take a cab for a 50 mile ride when a bus is available within five miles?
It has been the experience of people in southwestern Ontario that the government has systematically ignored their needs. The government has had this report, which was obviously designed to damage the case for the restoration of railway facilities. It sat on it throughout the election, although the minister had it delivered to him. During that time Liberal candidates were permitted to say that they were in favour of train service restoration, when in fact the government's recommendation here was obviously that buses should be preferred to trains. I ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to release the report? Will he table the report this week?


Jean Marchand: Is there a by-election in your riding next week? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows very well that I am not at all bound by this report which was prepared by the CTC.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I ask the minister whether he will table the report in the House this week.


Some hon. Members:: You have it already.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes or no? Other affected members of parliament from the area, including the hon. member for Bruce who is in the minister's own caucus, do not have copies of the report. Will he table it this week?
Apparently the minister is not willing to answer that question either. When the report is available I want to make an offer to members on the government side that, if the minister will not give them a copy of it, I would be willing to lend them mine. I hope that at the time they consider the report they will recognize the fact that the survey was incompetently carried out, and that it was structured in such a way as to destroy the case for the restoration of the railway service. I think it is incumbent upon anybody who goes to a tri-level conference, or to any other discussion dealing with the matter of the restoration of the railway passenger service in southwestern Ontario, to ensure it is fully understood that conclusions reached in Part III of the study are not valuable for any discussions and should be completely disregarded.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have only one word to add. I am very worried about the passenger train service in Canada, and particularly in southwestern Ontario.


Henry Perrin Beatty: So am I.


Jean Marchand: Maybe you do not believe it-and I do not mind that-but I do mind and I hope in a few years we are going to improve all this. We started with the Richmond Hill-Toronto-


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not in our area.


Jean Marchand: Oh, that is past, but there are some future-
October 23, 1974


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is not in our area. That is Toronto.


Jean Marchand: Oh, yes; Toronto is not in Canada.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is not in southwestern Ontario.


Jean Marchand: This part you are interested in, I am interested in too and I hope we are going to find a good passenger service. I believe deeply in this, and I hope that together we are going to do something that will be worth while for the people.


An hon. Member:: You are getting emotional.


Jean Marchand: No, I am not getting emotional and whatever CN and CP tell you, I will try to give this service to the people. If I do not succeed maybe somebody else will be found in Canada to do it.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, last March when he met representatives of the Canadian Railway Labour Association the minister is quoted as saying to them:
It the transportation situation continues in the mess it is now, I don't want to stay in this job. Someone else can manage this department.
Then he said:
I can't manage transportation in Canada. If you ask who is managing transportation policy, I say to you I don't know.
I am sorry to say it, Mr. Chairman, but on the basis of what we see tonight I think there is still nobody managing transportation policy.
That was last March, Mr. Chairman. A few months later we got into an election. The Prime Minister went across the country and talked about what the government would do to improve urban transportation if re-elected. He said that a government which he led would spend some $300 million for urban transportation in the next five years, that it would pay out $100 million for transit vehicles, and $50 million for commuter vehicles. Mr. Chairman, that is a small percentage of what we are likely to require.
The Prime Minister promised that the federal government would pay 25 per cent of the cost of urban transit vehicles-buses, street cars, subway cars. Toronto alone estimates it will need 200 new subway cars and 200 new street cars in the next five years. Montreal expects to need 400 new subway cars in the next five years, and will be spending something over $400 million on the electrified subway system to link Dorval and the Mirabelle airport. Other cities also need buses and subway trains. A rough estimate is that in the next five years they will be spending over $900 million for urban transit, which is twice as much as the Prime Minister promised during the election.
I should like to ask the minister whether his department is reviewing the needs of the cities in the field of urban transit, whether it will increase the $100 million which the Prime Minister promised and, if not, when the cities can begin to see some of that $100 million which he promised during the election?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt we intend to review that.


David Orlikow: Mr.Chairman, at one point during this sad evening the minister asked us not to be political or parti-
Estimates
san. I am simply asking when the people in the cities of Canada, who elected a large number of Liberal members, will begin to see some of this $100 million which the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign?
The Prime Minister also promised $50 million over the next 10 years for commuter vehicles, mainly trains. Commuter vehicles in Canada are essentially used to bring people into Toronto and Montreal. I know the minister is very interested in Montreal. Can the minister tell us when the cities can expect some assistance with the purchase of buses and subway cars? When will the people of Toronto, Montreal, and their suburbs see some of the money for commuter cars which the Prime Minister talked about during the election?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there are a certain number of things I cannot stand. One is this narrow way of tackling problems by saying, "You are interested in Montreal". My constituency is in Quebec, not Montreal. I am interested in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Halifax and all the rest of Canada. That is why I am in this House. No one can find anything that I have done since I have been here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I presume the applause will extend to the next part of my statement. I have not done anything for political purposes. I am in politics and like all members I believe in this country. As a minister, I believe I should serve all the country, not just part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time this evening I have found anything to agree with which the minister has said. He says that he is not a minister who represents only the city of Quebec. I am not a member who represents only the city of Winnipeg.
I do not think there is anything wrong with asking the minister when we can expect some action on a promise which his leader, the Prime Minister, made during the election, namely, that the federal government is prepared to spend $100 million for buses and subway cars and $50 million for commuter trains. Because I am not from Toronto or Montreal I do not think it is improper for me to ask the minister if the Prime Minister was serious when he made those promises? If he was serious, when will we begin to see the implementation of those promises? I have not received an answer to those two questions.
A few minutes ago the minister said there is one thing he is interested in, and that is improving passenger service. Even if the CNR and CPR are not interested, by God he will see that they improve passenger services or there will have to be another minister.
Let me go to another promise which was made. The Prime Minister promised that the government would set up an inter-city passenger rail service. A new Crown agency, the Canadian passenger transportation corporation, would be established to take over all inter-city passenger rail service.

October 23, 1974
Estimates
Three steps would be needed to implement such a policy. Legislation would be required to set up a corporation. We would need to introduce high speed inter-city trains, and introduce new concepts of rail travel leading to the elimination of level crossings and so on. This would take between seven and ten years to achieve. I am wondering when we are to see the beginning of this Canadian passenger transport corporation.
I used to find it most convenient to take one of the many trains between Ottawa and Montreal. Nowadays there are not many trains on this service. Meanwhile, the government is investing hundreds of millions in developing the STOL aircraft. Will the minister continue putting more millions into STOL, which will only meet the needs of a few highflying executives, or will he go back and give us some really good rail service between Ottawa and Montreal?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I would be tempted to be mean and I believe I shall not resist the temptation. It is rather strange that that hon. member, who is well known in Canada, whom I met before going into politics, who even came to see me at the time when I was general secretary of the Confederation of National Trade Unions fighting for the rights of man, then seemed to be very objective.
Today, of the two figures quoted for the STOL experiment, that is mine of $25 million and that of Mr. Sinclair, chairman of the CP, he chooses the latter's, naturally. Of course, I recognize the great socialist spirit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow): In any event, I say simply-it may be mean but not quite as much as the hon. member has been-that on March 7 last, I made a speech in the House on the transportation system, and then a general election was called much sooner than I had foreseen.
Mr. Chairman, during the election campaign, we said exactly the same things that we had said in our speech. In the Speech from the Throne, we find again exactly the same promises. We are about to come up with the programs we announced then. Let anyone find a government, whether NDP, Liberal or Progressive Conservative, which was as quick as this one has been and I shall raise my hat to him. If he cannot find one, I will just say that this is the meanness of a man who is unworthy of the great ideas he is fighting for.


David Orlikow: Even on one of his bad days-and this is one of his bad days-when the minister gets angry he is a good stump speaker. I have been around this place and other legislative bodies long enough to know that any government, particularly a Liberal government, takes a long time before it implements new programs.
If the minister believes it is going to take some time to set up the Canadian passenger transport corporation I would not argue with him. But the Prime Minister, when he made that promise, gave some specific figures-$100 million for transit vehicles, $50 million for commuter vehicles, $50 million for research and development, $25 million

for rail relocation and $75 million resulting from the removal of the 12 per cent sales tax. This represents a package of $300 million over five years. I want to know whether the Prime Minister meant that this $300 million would be spent three years from now, in other words, just before the next election.
A sum of $300 million over five years means $60 million a year. I am not saying that we have to spend $60 million each year, but will any of this money be spent in the next year? That is a very simple question I should like to have answered. I am trying to be as objective as I can, and to get some idea what the Prime Minister meant when he made these promises to the people of Canada.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the less time we waste in the House because of the hon. member, the quicker we shall come to the projects mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.


David Orlikow: Someone says I should raise a question of privilege, but I do not need to do so. If the minister really believes that asking questions in the House, or outside the House, about when the people of Canada can expect to get a program promised them by the Prime Minister is wasting the time of the House, then I might as well sit down now, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was not much point sitting on a Wednesday evening.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, my question is extremely brief and there may be time for one or two more before we break at 10.30. Unlike some of the questions asking for information asked a few minutes ago, the minister has had lots of time to consider my question. I have asked him this in correspondence over a number of months. I asked him last week in the House, and he promised me that he would have the answer. Now a week later I once again ask him whether we are going to get the report on the fatal accident at Frobisher Bay involving an aircraft and, if so, when?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that the report is on my desk. I informed some members of the House that I had the report; it has not been translated yet, and that is all. If the House would give unanimous consent to accepting the report without its being translated, then I am ready to table it, but I doubt whether that is a good procedure. I have the report, and I have told important people in the House that I have it.


John Raymond Ellis: If I may continue, would the minister, who promised me the report would be tabled last week, tell me when the report in both languages will be tabled?


Jean Marchand: If the hon. gentleman can tell me how long it takes to translate the report, I will give him the exact hour when it will be tabled.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been good enough to send me over a note saying that he had a copy of the report. I do not think it would be any abuse of confidentiality to tell the committee that the minister
October 23, 1974

would either let me see it, or he would table it with consent. I sent him back a note saying that in the circumstances it would be advisable for him to table the report without waiting for the translation.


Jean Marchand: I think the Leader of the Opposition is entirely right. He told me that as leader of his party he did not oppose the tabling of the report in the circumstances outlined. Unfortunately, I have not had the same response from the other leaders.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, before we see the clock at 10.30, the minister suggested earlier in the evening that he was prepared to introduce a bill in the House very soon requiring disclosure from CPR and CNR of all relevant information in terms of determining real cost. Can we get
Estimates
from the minister tonight some clear indication of precisely when he expects to do this?


Jean Marchand: I am in the hands of the House leader on this. As soon as he tells me that he has the agreement of all parties-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has it now.


Jean Marchand: I think it would be a good thing to have it as fast as we can.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.30 o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to special order made Thursday, October 3, 1974.
At 10.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 24, 1974