1975-05-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 arising out of the incredible admissions made in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates last night by Mr. H. Stewart on behalf of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's office concerning the swimming pool under construction at the Prime Minister's residence. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
With reference to the shocking disclosure that no one in government knows the identity of donors of the $200,000 swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, that only the Minister of National Revenue could determine this from income tax deductions taken by individuals with such information being private and privileged, that no investigation whatsoever was carried out by the Privy Council or Prime Minister's offices as to whether improprieties or conflict of interest factors exist in this situation, that a group of unidentified persons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 permits the hon. member to make a brief description of the urgency of the matter, not to debate the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The wording I was reading, Mr. Speaker, was the motion itself. There are about three lines left:
-whose motives must therefore be considered unknown have been permitted to engage a contractor and to build on government property, the House therefore requests immediate and full disclosure by the Prime Minister of all hidden details surrounding this very peculiar affair.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When the unemployment figures were released about a month ago, the minister said he would be bringing in a new budget as early as he could and he hoped it would be by the end of May. Since the figures released today only confirm the depressing unemployment situation, could the minister now give the House the date of the budget or is he in the middle rather than the final stage of his consensus talks?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to consult with the Prime Minister and my colleagues before announcing a date. I still hope it will be toward the end of May.


MINISTER'S VIEW OF RESTRICTIVE MONETARY POLICY AS OPTION TO CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT IN VIEW OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the substantial unemployment which exists now, is the minister really serious when he suggests that a highly restrictive budget and highly restrictive monetary policies are really an option to this consensus program, or to compulsory income and price controls, as he seemed to suggest when he spoke last Friday in Sarnia?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can draw his own assumptions from the speech. What I said in Sarnia was that, with the escalation of production costs in Canada, as compared with those of the United States and other competitors, we would have to face reality and I would be exercising, evaluating, rather, a range of options before bringing down the budget. As to the tone of the budget, I hope the hon. member will see that tone when the budget is brought down.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best in that respect. Does the minister not recall that on February 13 last he said, in response to questions, that he did not want the working men and women of this country to feel that he was trading off their ability to keep pace with the economy against their job security. He said, as recorded on page 3191 of Hansard:
The problem put in those terms, is a bit too stark in economic terms, and it is not the way I like to proceed in human terms.

May 13, 1975
Oral Questions
What developments caused the minister to adopt a position of stark choices, as he said in Sarnia on Friday that "the stark nature of the choice confronting us is only reinforced by the experience of the United Kingdom over the past year or so?" What caused the minister to turn 180 degrees?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I recall those words, and those words echoed similar statements I made in the November budget, when it became apparent in the third and particularly fourth quarters of 1974, and more so in the first quarter of 1975, that our cost performance was deteriorating as compared with the performance of our competitors. I said in Sarnia that the so-called traditional trade-off between unemployment and inflation might not be quite as apt, because if we do not get our costs under control-even in the event of a recovery in the United States-and if our cost ratios remain the same, we will not be able to penetrate that market nor even defend our own market; therefore one of the prerequisites to growing employment or the avoidance of massive unemployment in this country consists of bringing costs in this country into some sort of range which is comparable with that of the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why did you not say that during the election campaign?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As two documents, one entitled "Proposals for the First Year of Consensus," and the other entitled" Machinery for Administering a Voluntary Restraint Program" which were sent out by the chairman of the inflation secretariat just before the CLC meeting of last week, were described by the Minister of Finance on Thursday as outlines of the government's current thinking, would the minister indicate if he read the covering letter and the final wording of the documents before they were sent out? Yes or no.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. That letter was sent out by the secretariat in charge of the consensus process.


INFLATION-INQUIRY WHETHER INDUSTRY MINISTER READ COVERING LETTER AND DOCUMENTS SENT CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? As the Minister of Finance did not read the final documentation, did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who must be as concerned as the Minister of Finance about our balance of payments deficit, read the covering letter and the final form of the documents before they were sent out? Yes, or no.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Three o'clock.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the hon. gentleman's question.


Some hon. Members:: Three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is the rule, and the desire of the House, that points of order should be, if possible, deferred until three o'clock. However, I will hear the nature of the point of order so that I may, as I did recently with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, be in a position to decide whether it is preferable to hear the point now or defer it until three o'clock. Therefore, I must hear it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises directly from the hon. gentleman's supplementary question. When I said I had not read the covering letter, I said just that; I did not say I had not read the documentation. The hon. member rephrased the question in wider terms when putting it to my colleague.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe is recognized on a supplementary.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I address a final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Would he answer yes or no; did he read the final documentation that was sent out?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF THE NETHERLANDS, RIGHT HON. GOHANNES MARTEN DEN UYL
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), may I take just two moments to call to the attention of hon. members the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor, accompanied by members of his parliament and by his very lovely wife, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, The Right Hon. Gohannes Marten Den Uyl.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the unemployment figures released today which indicate that about 800,000 Canadians are unemployed. Unemployment is now running at the rate of 8.1 per cent which is even higher than at the worst point of the
May 13, 1975

deflationary program of April 1971. In light of the request by the CLC that the government come forward, as part of its package of plans to deal with the economy, with some suggestions to deal specifically with unemployment, does the government intend to do that or has it already done this with the CLC?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, obviously unemployment was a matter that was thoroughly discussed in previous meetings with the executive of the CLC and yesterday. The response of the government will have to await the budget.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister advise whether his department has made an estimate of the cost to the economy as a whole of maintaining an unemployment level in the neighbourhood of 8 per cent. Has any estimate been done of the cost to the economy for the first four months of this year for the unemployment we have experienced?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check if we have the figures in terms of lost production and lost income. However, in terms of the incalculable human cost with regard to careers and the human consequence of unemployment, that is impossible to calculate.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: I will take the minister up on his concern with human costs. Without giving the details of the budget he is going to bring forward at the end of this month or early in June, can he give some assurance there will be a specific component in there to deal with a significant increase in the supply of housing?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in this House for a number of years. He knows how difficult it would be for me to telegraph the budget.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour.
Following the representations made by his Quebec counterpart, to the effect that the federal Minister of Labour should discuss the various cases of projects carried out in the province of Quebec by the federal government, would the hon. minister be in a position to advise the House whether the study of these cases has been completed and, in the affirmative, whether he can inform the House of the findings?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could be a little more explicit as to the source of his quotation from the Quebec minister of labour. I have indicated to him recently that I will be happy to meet with him. We are thinking of bringing all labour ministers together later in the year.


Eudore Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
For his information, I should like to indicate to the hon. minister that the project is the one which is carried out in Quebec in connection with the flour mills and is under the federal government jurisdiction.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the jurisdictional question, now that the hon. member has been a little more explicit, I have advised the Quebec minister of labour of the federal position. If he wishes to meet further with respect to it, I would be only too happy to meet with him.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister stated during the last election that he did not intend to fight inflation on the backs of the unemployed, preferring to wrestle it to the ground instead, I would ask him how long the government intends to allow unemployment to remain well in excess of 7 per cent as a means of trying to combat inflation, and when it intends to bring in effective stimuli to get the economy back on its feet and thus bring unemployment to a more tolerable level?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: That is a very constructive question. As to the first part, the time will be as short as possible. As to the second part my answer must, of course, parallel that given by the Minister of Finance in connection with the budget.


George Harris Hees: That is no answer at all, but it is refreshing to find the Prime Minister not trying to be Bob Hope, Jr. again today. Does that answer mean that the economy has simply got out of control, and that the reason unemployment is remaining at such a high level is that the policies of the government are making it impossible for Canadian products to be competitive with those produced in other countries with the result that jobs are going to people in those countries instead of to Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Give us a quick answer, yes or no.


George Harris Hees: Obviously, that is what the Prime Minister is trying to say.
Oral Questions FINANCE

May 13, 1975


POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESTRICTIVE FISCAL POLICY IF NO ADHERENCE TO CONSENSUS GUIDELINES ON RESTRAINT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that recently asked by my leader.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, we have only one leader in the Progressive Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering that the first priority of the minister's November 18 budget was, and I quote, "action to sustain demand" and that in his announcement of a new budget he indicated that the creation of jobs was a priority, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether he is seriously considering a resort to a restrictive fiscal policy, as the minister said Mr. Healey had done in the United Kingdom, if the consensus he seeks is not adhered to?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman will just have to wait and see the tone of the budget.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of a series of questions last week relating to the appearance of the Secretary of the Privy Council before a parliamentary committee. I am sure the Prime Minister will accept this question in the spirit in which it is asked. Is his refusal to permit the Secretary to appear before a committee based on constitutional or upon historical grounds? What is the real reason behind not permitting him to appear?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The practice is that ministers or members of parliament appear before committees and are supported by the proper officials. In this case, any questions related to the planning, orientation or administration of the office would be answered by a very senior official. The Secretary of the Cabinet himself has traditionally not appeared before parliamentary committees and this, I suggest, is for a constitutional reason-it is that cabinet discussions are privy to the cabinet. They are not subject to questioning in the House or outside. I believe it is for this reason that secretaries to the cabinet never have, as such, appeared before parliamentary committees, and since I am a traditionalist I am following the practice,


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The reason I wish to pursue this matter-and I am sure the right hon. gentleman understands the seriousness of it-is that in reality the conclusion that the Prime Minister is putting forth

seems so close to the position put forth by former President Nixon in the Watergate case that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I tried to prejudice my remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a supplementary question; would he be good enough to put it.


James McPhail Gillies: I should have said, of course, "preface my remarks". It seems to me that the question that follows is this. If we become concerned about executive privilege, which has been a matter of grave concern in the United States during the past, then if we take the literal interpretation of what the Prime Minister says, how will it be possible for members of parliament to bring before committees officers or people involved in the legislative function or the administrative function of this country? I think it is a very important issue in light of the apparent situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a very important question and it lies basically in the understanding of the difference between the American system and ours. Ours is a system of ministerial responsibility. Officials are not responsible to committees.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Where was the minister last night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I realize that the hon. member on the front bench is asking the question seriously, but obviously the rearguard is not very interested in the answer.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON RIGHT OF COMMITTEES TO EXAMINE PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the government House leader. As this is only one of several instances-the latest of which occurred yesterday-of the exercise of executive privilege to prevent civil servants from giving evidence before standing committees, would the government House leader consult the other House leaders in order to try and arrange a debate in the House to find out exactly what are the rights of this House in regard to examining public servants?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the principle of ministerial responsibility was widely accepted in all parts of this House. Indeed, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister, the secretary of the cabinet did not appear before parliamentary committees either.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood on a supplementary.
May 13, 1975


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I listen to ministers on the government side of the House but I was unable to catch the golden words of the hon. gentleman. I wish he would repeat them. The only portion I heard was the reference to myself, and I should like to know what the reference was.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to repeat what I said. I was saying that the principle of ministerial responsibility was, I hoped, accepted on all sides of the House; and I said that when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister, the secretary of the cabinet did not appear before parliamentary committees.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true and correct. But what is happening today is that the government of Canada is hiding information by refusing to allow those civil servants who can tell the story to come before committees.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand that the British government has announced its intention to give full recognition to the provincial revolutionary government of South Viet Nam. While I appreciate that we in this country do not inevitably follow the British precedent, will the government give urgent consideration to such recognition, especially-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Just a minute and I will tell you why.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could do that at some other time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the "why" is incorporated in the last sentence of my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand what the hon. member was getting at even though he did not have a chance to complete his question. The government is presently giving urgent consideration to this question and is aware that the British government has taken or is about to take the action to which the hon. member refers.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, will the government, in giving attention to this question, also take into account that such recognition is important if we are to discuss directly with the de facto government of South Viet Nam Canada's participation in international aid and the reconstruction of that war torn country?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That would obviously be a possible subject for discussion when and if active recognition is entered into.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, despite the temptation to clarify the Prime Minister's obvious misunderstanding of what went on in the committee last night-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Joseph Clark: -the deliberate misunderstanding of what went on, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since Mr. Justice Berger has just announced that his budget will contribute $100,000 to the Northern Assessment Group, which would indicate that in Mr. Justice Berger's view the inquiry requires a long-term assessment which only the Northern Assessment Group can provide, will the minister accept that view and provide direct federal funding for the essential research by that group, or compensate the budget of Mr. Justice Berger?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, this is a suggestion I made two or three weeks ago in this House, that Mr. Justice Berger could possibly find the money within his budget to assist, in this case, the native people to acquire the services of members of the Northern Assessment Group. I am delighted he has found that he is able to squeeze his budget to that extent.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the minister to today's question and not one at issue three weeks ago. I would ask him whether it is the intention of the government of Canada to contribute directly to the research of the Northern Assessment Group or to compensate the Berger inquiry for moneys it has now allocated to that group so that the over-all activities of the Berger inquiry will not be limited or curtailed unnecessarily by the apparent desire of this government not to have that inquiry do its job?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, to follow that along in sequence; firstly, it is not the intention of the government to contribute directly to the Northern Assessment Group; and secondly, we assume Judge Berger to be a competent and capable individual who has made the decision that he has these resources from the funds which are totally and completely provided by this government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is it still the position of the minister, as stated yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

May 13, 1975
Oral Questions


BERGER COMMISSION-MINISTER'S VIEW OF ADEQUACY OF RESEARCH DONE BY NORTHERN ASSESSMENT GROUP
Charles Joseph Clark: Is it still the position of the minister, as stated yesterday at page 5672 of Hansard that it was his understanding that the research was done? I ask this in light of the fact that Mr. Justice Berger has now granted $100,000 from his own scarce funds which would indicate that in his view the necessary long-term research was not done. Is the minister still in disagreement with Mr. Justice Berger as to the adequacy of the long-term research that has been done by the Northern Assessment Group?


J. Judd Buchanan: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that these are public funds being used and not those of Mr. Justice Berger. Secondly, as I indicated, this is a decision which he has taken in his wisdom, and also as I have indicated, it is not our policy to provide funds directly to the Northern Assessment Group. These funds last year were provided through Mr. Justice Berger for the original funding which was given to the Northern Assessment Group.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question relating to the one put by the hon. member for Greenwood to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question deals with the communist takeover of various countries including South Viet Nam, Cambodia and probably Laos. In light of the fact that the president of the United States has now disclosed in an official executive way the bloodbath that is going on during the communist takeover, and in light of the national press reports regarding the 5,000 refugees who lost their lives as the result of the sinking of a ship, has there been any thought by this government of making an official protest through the proper channels of the United Nations or otherwise in reference to this kind of conduct that is taking place during this communist takeover?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have already commented from time to time in the House in respect of events in South Viet Nam.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the minister has commented, but it seems to me he is now afraid to comment. I am asking whether his government has made any formal protest. If he is going to remain silent, it is obvious his government has made no protest, nor does it intend to protest.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would specify in more clearcut terms exactly what the nature of the protest should be, it might be possible to answer his question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was asking specifically about a protest in relation to the fact that there has been a bloodbath in Cambodia, as admitted by the president of the United States, and 5,000 refugees lost their lives as a result of the sinking of a ship. Surely, that kind of conduct against refugees calls for a protest by this government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have stated in the House in the strongest possible terms-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In your terms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in the strongest possible terms our feelings of regret, indeed in much stronger terms than that, about the suffering which has been inflicted, as a result of this conflict, on innocent civilians, especially those who have been displaced as a result of this conflict and who are now of a refugee status. Obviously, the government of Canada has gone much further than that in opening its doors to refugees from Viet Nam, and in offering humanitarian assistance in every way it is possible for Canada to act effectively in this context.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the automotive parts trade with the United States for the first quarter of 1975 shows a deficit of $529 million, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce plan any discussion with his United States counterparts in relation to the auto pact to see what can be done to bring this valuable part of our economy into balance? Could the minister also advise us about the results of the studies of the effect of DISC for western hemisphere trading corporations on our automotive parts trade?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have no specific plans for discussions with the Americans, but we do have plans to have discussions with the auto parts industry.


AUTO PARTS-LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF IMPORTS
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing high level of unemployment in the automotive parts industry, could the minister advise us about the long-term effects of imports of automotive parts from developing countries, and can he justify the classification of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Mexico as developing nations when the investment in the automotive industry and the production of units in those countries almost equals ours?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I gave a full explanation of these particular measures before the committee on
May 13, 1975

finance, trade and economic affairs last week. If the hon. member will take a look at the record, he will get the answer.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable and humane Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of Oxfam's recent purchase of surplus eggs from the Alberta Egg and Fowl Marketing Board, which have been processed for disaster relief in the East Indian states, would the minister consider adopting the suggestion of the manager of the egg board and look upon the plan as a pilot project for future Canadian aid programs, and will he also discuss with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture the progress being made on a program to process this year's surplus potato crop for food aid and thus avoid yet another shameful destruction of valued food stocks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's preamble I will be happy to give very careful consideration to each of the points he has made.

Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Unemployment figures released today show an unadjusted unemployment rate for April for the Atlantic Provinces, excluding Prince Edward Island, of 14.6 per cent. What plans does the minister have for the critical task of job creation for this hard-pressed region, and especially the very hard-hit areas such as Newfoundland, Cape Breton and Northern New Brunswick?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the budget when it is brought forward will recognize the regional pattern of the four Atlantic provinces. I echo the sentiments set forth by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Finance did not recognize this in his November budget. In 1971, when this government chose to fight inflation by wiping out the livelihoods of many working people in this country, the Atlantic provinces experienced an unemployment rate of 8.6 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question would he put it?
s|c *	*


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, is of the opinion that the people of Canada should be made aware of the real cost of the bilingualism policy in Canada, of the expenditures related both indirectly and directly to this policy. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the wish expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages will be answered soon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the particular context in which this statement was made but, of course, it corresponds to the general position taken by the government, namely that the citizens, the taxpayers, are entitled to know how their tax dollar is spent. In principle, I agree with him. As for the details, I shall confer with the President of the Treasury Board to see whether there is any way to provide the hon. member with further details concerning the expenditures involved.


Andrew Hogan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. How high will the minister allow the Unemployment rate to rise in the Atlantic region before we can get relief?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I am sure I voice the concern of all members about the alarming increase in the crime of extortion which is now prevalent in our country. Current press reports cite an increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the prevalence of the crime of extortion in this country, preying mainly on the banking and financial professions, will the government and the judiciary immediately review this very serious situation and legislate to increase the penalties for such crimes in order to more severely punish and deter those who would commit them?

May 13, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to receive any positive suggestions from the hon. member, but it is my impression that there is a good deal of flexibility in the sentences which are available, and that the courts and judges can indeed increase these penalties if this matter becomes a more frequent problem. I think the question is more one of an enforcement problem and the facilities in that regard. I will be glad to receive any suggestions the hon. member has.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In January the Minister of National Defence stated he would dispose of seven Falcon executive jets to cut costs. On Tuesday he told the committee that his department no longer has the seven jets in its budget but that the Ministry of Transport might include them in its fleet. Can the minister inform the House if the planes are now under his control?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Could he inform the House what department is paying the operating costs of these planes, and whether there is any saving to the taxpayer by shuffling executive jets from one department to another.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the aircraft are being operated by the Department of National Defence, but as I informed the committee they are not in the National Defence budget. Their cost will be carried by the government but the department which will carry that cost has not been determined at this time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. On May 1 the minister stated that he had just received material from the Minister of Justice showing that there may be enough evidence to form the basis for an inquiry into labour activities of the SIU under the Canada Labour Code or by using another option for conducting a further inquiry. Last week as well, he indicated he would make his decision known to this House within a few days. I would, therefore, like to ask the minister whether he has studied the Justice Minister's material and whether the

information now justifies an inquiry under either the Canada Labour Code or under one of his stated options?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have studied the report of the Minister of Justice. I have taken the matter up with my colleagues now, and hope to have a decision which I can bring to the House perhaps by the end of this week.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said he would inquire into the nature of the difficulties which have delayed the setting up of the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation for over a year and a half, would the minister say what these difficulties have been and when we can expect this corporation, designed to provide a secondary mortgage market, will be established.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the difficulty has been to find, first of all, a president and board of directors who were not already in a potential conflict of interest and yet had experience in the field. I hope we will be able to announce the board shortly.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has a directive gone out from the minister's department to the Department of National Health and Welfare of the Province of Manitoba announcing that the vocational rehabilitation services of that department are to be withdrawn in respect of persons of treaty status.


J. Judd Buchanan: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I will have to look into it for the hon. member and get back to him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is investigating this matter, could he also determine whether the withdrawal of services would be contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights?


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
May 13, 1975


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I welcome him back from his trip to Italy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Now that the minister has returned, I wonder if he would advise the House what action he is taking to disseminate the information on the three minor factors under the veterans housing program which he announced and which came into effect on May 1.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, today's press carries quite a dissemination of it, and also there will be further information released by the office of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. This will be in effect pretty soon.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the non-profit section of the program would require non-profit organizations to implement the building of apartments or housing for veterans, what action has the minister taken to discuss with veterans organizations, and particularly the Canadian Legion, the initiation of such programs on behalf of veterans?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The legion branches themselves have shown great interest, and some have already put forth some effort in this respect. Members of our department from various areas across the country have informed them where the information is available, where they can apply and what have you.


HOUSING PROGRAM-PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE REHABILITATION OF SUBSTANDARD HOUSES
Jack Marshall: One of the most important needs of veterans today is the rehabilitation of downgraded and substandard homes. Would the minister, in consultation with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, consider amending the program announced to include a rehabilitation factor so that grants could be made available to veterans to upgrade their homes which are now substandard and which they cannot afford to fix themselves because of fixed incomes?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This portion of it can certainly receive consideration, the same as other programs in the Department of Veterans Affairs which are always under consideration for further improvement.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, and it may be supplementary to a question asked of the Minister of Justice a little while ago. In view of the fact that a tremendous amount of gutter money from organized crime in Canada is being laundered into so-called legitimate enterprise, what new initiatives are the minister's department and the RCMP taking to eliminate or reduce this grave economic and social peril to our country?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that question would take me some time to answer, but I should tell the hon. member that we will be dealing with it this afternoon when I am before the justice committee with my department's estimates.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a resignation from the Solicitor General or any other cabinet minister, or have there been discussions regarding this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked at that question.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Transport will not be shocked by my question. I want to ask about the financial obligations of the Maritime Employers' Association to both the government and the banks with respect to certain guarantees. I ask the minister whether the Maritime Employers' Association has approached the government with respect to their ability to meet their commitments to the banks, commitments which the government has guaranteed, and whether they are now in a position to continue with the retirement of that debt and to meet the interest and principal payments, in view of the very lengthy strike in the river ports.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot do it today, but I might be in a position to do it tomorrow. I know that the MEA was asking that we forgo the tax which was supposed to come back to the National Harbours Board in order to help the MEA meet its obligation, but I do not know what agreement has been reached, and by tomorrow I should be able to answer the hon. gentleman's question.

May 13, 1975
Oral Questions CONFLICT OF INTEREST


REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF DONORS OF SWIMMING POOL AT PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In view of the disclosure to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates last night by a senior member of the Privy Council that no one in government knows the names of the donors to the $200,000 swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive, and that no investigation was made of their background or connections to determine conflict of interest, will the Prime Minister now agree to full disclosure of all details concerning this affair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear before that no one in the government, not even myself, knows the names, and therefore there cannot be any possible suggestion of conflict of interest.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: What law or cabinet decision permits a group of persons unknown to the government or to parliament to enter upon government property, hire a contractor, dig a big hole-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -do thousands and thousands of dollars worth of work without their names and motives being known to the government or parliament? What authority does the Prime Minister have, without the authority of parliament, to order this particular-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West.


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). Some weeks ago I asked the minister a question regarding the ICNAF quotas and whether any countries violated those quotas, and if so, to what extent. The minister promised to tell the House at a later date. I wonder if he is now able to tell the House just what happened with regard to the quotas.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the quotas from the beginning of the year, which is January, as far as I know have not yet been violated. There has been heavy fishing. We are keeping a careful eye on this. In fact, the DND vessel Annapolis boarded 12 Russian ships in the last few days; 10 Spanish ships were boarded and surveillance is quite effective.


Walter C. Carter: My question was connected with last year's quotas, not this year's.


Roméo LeBlanc: I will have to check into this and inform the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who made it clear a number of months ago that the consensus program was under his direction. Is this program still under the direction of the Prime Minister, or now that it is not going so well, is the responsibility pinned on the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: He's handed it over to John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre on a question of privilege.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, there was a development just prior to noon this morning in one of the standing committees which, when combined with answers given to questions raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in the question period, gives me reason to ask the Chair's permission to consider this as notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member ought to know that if events have taken place today which give rise to a question of privilege, he should raise it now.


Harvie Andre: I am prepared to do so, although I have not done the preparation I would have liked, But if that is the proper procedure, I will proceed at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: There has to be some indication of what the question is. At the moment I have notice of a question of privilege but I have no idea with what it is connected.


Harvie Andre: My reason for giving notice is that I have not had the opportunity of giving the required notice according to my understanding of the rules, and in order not to preclude the possibility of raising this question tomorrow I give notice at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the hon. member misunderstands me. That is not the problem. In the past, when a member has found himself in a position where he wished to raise a question of privilege but needed time to prepare it, I have always taken the position that once having given notice he was freed of any difficulty about having raised it at the first opportunity. The only trouble is that the hon. member has not told me what the question of privilege is about. If he raises it tomorrow I will know what it relates to.
May 13, 1975


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege deals with the right of members of parliament to obtain information and to question officials and representatives of government. I am giving notice at this time of a substantive question of privilege to be raised tomorrow on this subject.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, an answer relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's position vis-a-vis the televising of the film production "Encounter With Cancer" to be seen on English network television on Sunday, May 18, 1975.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Leonard C. Jones: for leave to introduce Bill C-389, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliation).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to delete certain references in the Canada Elections Act to political party affiliation, and in particular the need for a certificate on a nomination paper by a party leader or his delegate, the reasons for which should be obvious to all members of this House and the public generally; that is, in order to preserve democracy and freedom of choice.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair in order that the House may go into committee of the whole.']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,788, 2,076, 2,091, 2,098, 2,111, 2,113, 2,114, 2,122, 2,129, 2,162, 2,171, 2,173, 2,181, 2,184, 2,185, 2,186, 2,195, 1,238, 2,262, 2,292, 2,298, 2,339 and 2,422.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 58 and 2,009 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,215?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the government give its prior approval to Joseph Burton's intelligence-gathering activities in Canada on behalf of the FBI?
2.	On how many occasions was this prior approval sought and given?
3.	What are the dates which the government has a record of his presence in Canada?
4.	Did the government give its approval to his activities as an agent provocateur in disrupting relations between leftist groups?
5.	For what reason did the government feel it was necessary to have an agent of a foreign government engage in intelligence-gathering in Canada instead of utilizing Canadians for this function?
6.	Were the full copies of his reports to the FBI immediately made available to the Canadian government or was the government only given partial reports?
7.	By year since 1970 (a) on how many occasions has the FBI requested permission from the government to send its operatives to Canada (b) on how many occasions was permission granted?
8.	How many arrests (a) resulted from his Canadian activities (b) resulted in conviction?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Yes, this was done with the knowledge and consent of the RCMP.
2.	Four times.
3.	November 17 18 and 19, 1972; May 12, 1973; July 14 and 15, 1973; August 11 and 12, 1973.
4.	No.
5.	The trans-national character of terrorist and extremist organizations compels close liaison arrangements between allied Security agencies in order to effectively monitor their activities. Joint operations between the RCMP and the FBI are undertaken where the activities of such groups overlap the Canada/USA border.
6.	The RCMP are satisfied that they were provided with a full report by the FBI.
7.	(a) 1970, 4; 1971, 2; 1972, 7; 1973, 13; 1974, 6; 1975, Nil; (b) 1970, 4; 1971, 2; 1972, 7; 1973, 13; 1974, 6; 1975, Nil.
8.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil.
5732

May 13, 1975
Order Paper Questions


BORROWING REQUIREMENTS FOR CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 864, does the Minister of Finance intend to rely solely on discussions with provincial governments in order to attempt to regulate borrowing requirements for capital development purposes or is he considering any fiscal regulatory measures?
2.	By what means will the borrowing priorities of the provincial governments be rated and is the government intending to impose any controls on the inflow of foreign capital?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
purpose of the annual federal-provincial exchange of borrowing information described in the answer to question 864 is to aid the design and conduct of shorter-term economic stabilization policies through better data related to the provinces' role in the domestic demand for goods and services and the financing of the capital account of Canada's international balance of payments. The discussions have had a macro-economic setting, exclusively, and have not touched on the regulation of individual provinces' access to foreign bond markets. On February 27, 1975 the Minister of Finance announced the withdrawal of the foreign borrowing guidelines introduced by the government in 1970. Mr. Turner said the government no longer wishes Canadian borrowers to feel constrained by the request made by his predecessor and since repeated on several occasions to explore fully the availability of funds in Canadian capital market before floating issues outside of Canada. This specific request to Canadian borrowers is being withdrawn at this time because the current account of Canada's balance of payments is not now in a surplus position as it was when the request was made. Mr. Turner noted that the House of Commons approved an amendment to Clause 118 of Bill C-49. The effect of that amendment was to extend the exemption from withholding tax for interest on government bonds for a further three-year period-that is, government securities issued before 1979. This should resolve the immediate problem which has been of particular concern to the provinces-the problem of organizing their budgetary and borrowing requirements over the difficult next period of several years. The minister expressed confidence that these changes will help Canadian authorities and businesses in planning their financial affairs.
2.	The government has no intention of rating the borrowing priorities of provincial governments. The government is not contemplating imposing any controls on the inflow of foreign capital to provincial governments.


APPOINTMENT OF MR. GILLES LACOURSIERE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	On what date was Mr. Gilles Lacoursiere appointed chairman of an arbitration board?
2.	During how many sitting days and half sitting days did he sit on the board?
3.	How many appeals did he hear since his appointment (a) how many were heard in the presence of the beneficiary (b) how many were granted in the presence of the beneficiary?
4.	Of the appeals heard by Mr. Lacoursiere since his appointment, how many hearings were held (a) in the absence of the beneficiary (b) in the presence of the beneficiary (c) when the beneficiary was represented and, in each case, how many appeals were granted in favour of the beneficiary?
[Mr. Allmand.J


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. On November 1, 1973, to the Board of
Referees of Trois-Rivieres.
2.	At March 31, 1975, he had sat for 17 days and 10 half-days.
3.	Appeals heard, 202. a) Claimant present, 116. b) In favour of the claimant, 30.
4.	a) Absent, 86; In favour of the claimant, 10. b) Present, 116; In favour of the claimant, 30. c) Represented, 54; In favour of the claimant, 16.


UIC-NUMBER OF CASES HEARD BY BOARDS OF REFEREES, 1973-74
Mr. Laprise: For the fiscal year 1973-74, how many cases were brought before the UIC arbitration magistrate and how many were decided in favour of the beneficiary for the (a) Montreal area (b) Province of Quebec?


Robert Knight Andras: Cases heard in the Quebec region: 7,603. In favour of the claimant: Montreal area, 405; Province of Quebec, 1,426.


UIC-MATERNITY BENEFITS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In 1974, how many maternity benefits were paid in each province?
2.	How many women lost their maternity benefits on account of premature birth?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Maternity Benefits by Province-Janu-ary-December, 1974:
	(Dollars)
Newfoundland	1,477,834
Prince Edward Island	371,929
Nova Scotia	2,340,393
New Brunswick	1,701,589
Quebec	22,847,291
Ontario	33,023,488
Manitoba	3,760,267
Saskatchewan	2,543,288
Alberta	6,471,901
British Columbia	6,934,811
Yukon	105,317
North West Territories	113,151
Outside Canada	16,862
Canada	81,708,121
2.	Data not available.


UIC-NUMBER OF PEOPLE DENIED BENEFITS IN 1974
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the year 1974, how many persons were deprived of unemployment insurance allocations because (a) they did not have a way of transportation (b) they had moved or were living in a community where job opportunities were practically non-existent (c) they had moved in an area where another language was spoken and could not
May 13, 1975

obtain a job in the other language (d) they could not give the name of a babysitter for their children?


Robert Knight Andras: The commission does not compile statistics on these component factors of "availability". To be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, Section 25(a) of the act requires that the claimant be capable and available for work. The factors of transportation, residence, language competence and child care arrangements are but few of the multiplicity of factors which are taken into consideration in establishing a claimants "availability" for work. For example, distance and transportation are considered against the background of normal commuting practice of workers in the area in which they reside, the opportunities for return to suitable employment in immediate and contiguous areas, and claimants' duration of unemployment. The principle here is that the claimant who is genuinely interested in returning to work must be given a reasonable opportunity to make the adjustments necessitated by the realities of the labour market and associated conditions.


UIC-FUNDS ALLOCATED IN 1973-74 FOR PUBLICITY AND INFORMATION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	For the fiscal year 1973-74 for each district or regional office in the Province of Quebec, what budgetary funds were allocated for publicity and information of those receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	What portion of the budgetary funds were effectively used?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. 1973, $24,200; 1974, $50,178.
2.	1973, $22,300; 1974, $42,611.
(a)	(b)
Amount	Name
$ 4,625.00	Abouchard, Alan Prof.
$ 580.00	Atherton, David L.
$ 30.50	Foster, Charles Col.
$ 7,446.25	Fruchauf, Winfried Dr.
* 360.00	Hauer, Ezra Prof.
110,494.56	MacQuarrie, John J.
S 200.00	Richardson, Douglas, S., Ph. D.
$ 300.00	Wade,,]. H.T. Dr.
* 2,050.09	John Bousfield and Associates
* 3,100.00	Comay Planning Consultants
$ 5,760.00	Landrum & Brown
Order Paper Questions AIRPORT INQUIRY COMMISSION


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total cost of the Airport Inquiry Commission appointed by Order in Council PC 1973-3026, dated October 5, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount paid or payable in salaries, fees or expenses to the Chairman and each Commissioner for their work on the Commission?
3.	What was the total amount in salary, fees or expenses paid or payable to (a) Research Director (b) each Research Assistant (c) each Office Manager (d) secretary to the Chairman of the Commission (e) General Counsel (f) each Associate Counsel (g) each Internal Counsel?
4.	(a) What was the total amount in salary, fees or expenses paid or payable to each consultant (b) what are their names (c) nature of work (d) for what period of time were they employed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1.

May 13, 1975
Order Paper Questions


UIC-MATERNITY BENEFITS-MARCH, 1973 TO MARCH, 1974
Mr. Huntington: 1.	How many people have received maternity benefits under UIC for the years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974?
2.	What was the total amount paid by UIC for maternity benefits for the years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Year ending March 31, 1973: 44,217; Year ending March 31, 1974: 56,948.
2. Year ending March 31, 1973: $44,978,888; Year ending March 31, 1974: $69,772,401.


CIRCULATION OF $1,000 NOTES
Mr. Lachance: 1.	As of March 20, 1975, how many Bank of Canada $1,000 bills of exchange were in circulation?
2.	How many such bills does the Bank of Canada issue each working day?


John Napier Turner: 1. Information not available as of March 20, 1975. On February 28, 1975, there were 128,869 $1000 Bank of Canada notes in circulation.
2. The Bank of Canada fills requisitions for $1000 notes by the banks who in turn are responding to their customers' requirements. As of February 28, 1974 there were 105,396 $1000 notes in circulation. There was therefore a net increase of 23,473 notes of this denomination in circulation in the 12 months to February 28, 1975.


RCMP COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Mr. Leggatt: What are the (a) names (b) backgrounds of those appointed to the RCMP Commission of Inquiry?


William Warren Allmand: (a) Judge Rene J. Marin, Chairman; Mr. Robin P. Bourne, Member; Staff Sgt. Robert A. Potvin, Member; Inspector Donald K. Wilson, Member; Mr. Ross Wimmer, Member.
(b) Judge Rene J. Marin-County and District Court Judge, province of Ontario and former Special Assistant and Coordinator Federal Law Reform Commission. Graduate of University of Ottawa, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Philosophy (1957) and Bachelor of Law (Ontario (1960). Called to the Bar of Ontario (1962). Appointed member of the Ontario Municipal Board in 1966. Appointed magistrate for the province of Ontario and Judge of the Juvenile and Family Court, county of Renfrew, Ontario in 1968. Appointed Judge of the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) in 1968. Appointed to the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1971. Appointed County

and District Court Judge (province of Ontario) in 1973. Received Honorary LL.D. Laurentian University in 1974. Mr. Robin P. Bourne-Assistant Deputy Minister, Police and Security Planning and Analysis, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. Graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada in 1952 and the University of Western Ontario in 1954. Served in the Canadian Army in various operational and staff appointments in Korea, Germany, United Kingdom, Cyprus and Canada. Seconded to the cabinet secretariat of the Privy Council Office in 1968, and to the Ministry of the Solicitor General in 1971. Retired from the Canadian Forces in 1972 with the rank of colonel and joined the public service of Canada.
Staff Sgt. Robert A. Potvin-Joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police January 6, 1953, and has served in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario. He has been employed on both general police duties and in the security service. In 1973 he was elected Staff Relations Representative for "BQ" Division and re-elected in 1974. His secondment to the Commission of Inquiry resulted from his being nominated by the other division staff relations representatives.
Inspector Donald K. Wilson-Joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on August 26, 1957. Following varied police duties in Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia he was appointed to the rank of inspector on May 1, 1968. At the time of his appointment to the Commission of Inquiry Inspector Wilson was in charge of the force's legal branch. He possesses a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Manitoba.
Mr. Ross Wimmer-Senior partner in the law firm of Wimmer, Toews, Kaufman, Kraus & McKay, Regina, Saskatchewan. Graduated in law from the University of Saskatchewan in 1959; admitted to the Bar of the province of Saskatchewan, 1961; of the province of Alberta, 1966; and of the province of Manitoba 1973; served as a Judge of the Magistrate's Court in the province of Saskatchewan during 1967; appointed as agent of the Attorney General for the province of Saskatchewan in 1972; member of the Canadian Bar Association; president of the Regina Bar Association; presently a Bencher of the Law Society of Saskatchewan.


EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY TO MILITARY COLLEGES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the educational requirement for admission of French speaking students to military colleges operated by the Department of National Defence and specifically, is it, among other things, a Grade 10 education?
2.	What is the educational requirement for admission of English speaking students to military colleges operated by the Department of National Defence and specifically, is it, among other things, a Grade 12 or 13 education?
3.	Are French speaking students admitted to National Defence Military Colleges with a lower educational requirement than English speaking students and, if so, what are all the reasons for this?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The educational requirement for admission of French speaking students to military colleges operated by the Department of National Defence is based on provincial secondary school standards as they apply to all students of
May 13, 1975

that province. Canadian Military College academic entry standards are entirely associated with an applicants' academic eligibility to enter the baccalaureate programs.
2.	The educational requirement for admission of English speaking students is based on exactly the same criteria as outlined in part 1 of this question.
3.	No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-EXPENDITURES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES EXCLUSIVE OF PERSONNEL COSTS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1963 to March 31, 1973, what was the level of DND expenditures for goods and services exclusive of personnel costs?
2.	In each ease, what was the percentage increase in the level of DND expenditures for goods and services exclusive of personnel costs of the given year over that of the immediately preceding year?
3.	In each case, what was the real increase in total cost for goods and services to the Department for the given year over that of the immediately preceding year and what deflator was used?
4.	In each case for which a deflator of any type was used in calculating the real increases sought in Part 3, what was the deflator as a percentage?
5.	What is the deflator to be for the purposes of the 1975-76 fiscal year?
6.	Are the deflators used identical to those used in arriving at the figures in answer to Question No. 1,325 and, if not, in what respects do they differ?
Order Paper Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: 1, 2 and 3. The level of Department of National Defence expenditures for goods and services exclusive of personnel costs, percentage increases and real increases for the years in question are all contained in table below.
4 and 5. The deflator used in calculating the real increase and the deflator used for 1975-76 are all contained in table below.
6. The deflators used in the response to this question and questions 2,184, 2,185 and 2,186 are similar but not identical to those used in the response to question 1,325. Since question 1,325 was answered more complete actual expenditure data have become available on fiscal year 1974-75 and further economic analysis has been done on other recent fiscal years. The source of the deflators used in all of the referenced questions is the base data for the DND Economic Model (EM) which is a set of indices calculated within DND in order to measure the impact of inflation on defence expenditures more precisely than could be done with more widely used measures such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Economic Model rates are determined by analysis of economic data from a variety of sources including government departments, defence related industries and actual defence expenditures. Because inflation model data have not been developed for years prior to fiscal year 1970-71, a statistical derivation from the CPI had to be used for the earlier years.
DND Expenditures for Goods and Services-Fiscal \ ears 62/63 to 75/76
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4) ActualTotal	Actual $ Increase	PercentageFiscal	Expenditures	Over Previous	Increase OverYear	($000,000)	Year ($000,000)	Previous Year61/62	310	62/63	729	-81	10.00063/64	740	11	1.50964/65	087	-53	- 7.16265/66	676	-11	1.60166/67	694	18	2.66367/68	750	56	8.06968/69	723	-27	- 3.60069/70	699	-24	- 3.32070/71	683	-16	- 2.28971/72	729	46	6.73572/73	693	-36	- 4.93873/74	822	129	18.61574/75	932*	110	13.38275/76	1,109**	177	18.991* Forecast	** Estimate	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)CPI-EM	CPI-EM	Real $ Increase	Real PercentageDeflator	Inflation rate	Over Previous	Increase Overas a Percentage	as a Percentage	Year ($000,000)	Previous YearExpressed in	Expressed onPrevious Fiscal	Previous FiscalYear Dollars	Year Rase2.328	2.383	-98	-2.0992.577	2.045	- 8	-1.0972.643	2.715	-71	-9.5953.272	3.383	-33	-4.8035.608	5.941	-21	-3.1075.264	5.556	17	2.4505.169	5.451	-64	-8.5336.087	6.482	-67	-9.2074.030	4.199	-44	-6.2954.525	4.274	16	2.3435.900	0.270	-77	-10.5629.471	10.462	51	7.35914.178	16.520	-22	-2.67611.332	12.780	51	5.472
Note: The relationship between an inflator and a deflator is expressed by the formula:
100 I


D -    100 I I
[Stage Direction]
where D = Deflator; I = Inflator
[Stage Direction]
May 13, 1975
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the increase of 18% in defence expenditures on goods and services between the fiscal period 1972-73 and 1973-74 and the 5.9% real increase in goods and services as contained in the answer to Question No. 1,325, what was the average level of price increase in purchasing goods and services over this period, calculated independently of any increases in the volume of spending on goods and services?


James Armstrong Richardson: The average level of price increase in purchasing goods and services between the fiscal period 1972-73 and 1973-74 was 10.462 per cent. The source for this figure is the DND Economic Model described in response to question No. 2,181 (See Column 6 of table).


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AVERAGE LEVEL OF PRICE INCREASES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, 1973-75
Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the increase of 16.8% in defence expenditures on goods and services between the fiscal period 1973-74 and 1974-75 and the .27% real increase in goods and services as contained in the answer to Question No. 1,325, what was the average level of price increase in purchasing goods and services over this period, calculated independently of any increases in the volume of spending on goods and services?


James Armstrong Richardson: The average level of price increase in purchasing goods and services between the fiscal period 1973/74 and 1974/75 was 16.52 per cent. The source for this figure is the DND Economic Model described in response to question No. 2,181 (See table, column 6).


NATIONAL DEFENCE-ESTIMATED REAL INCREASE IN COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES, 1974-76
Mr. Forrestall: Is the estimated real increase in the total cost of goods and services supplied to DND during the fiscal period 1974-75 as compared to the fiscal period 1973-74, 0.27% and, if so, expressed in percentage and using the same procedures based on the present estimates, what is the estimated real increase in the total cost of goods and services for the fiscal period 1975-76 as compared to the fiscal period 1974-75?


James Armstrong Richardson: The actual Department of National Defence expenditures on goods and services during the fiscal period 73/74 were $822 million. The forecast actual expenditures for fiscal year 74/75 are now $932 million. When the fiscal year 74/75 forecast is deflated to fiscal year 73/74 dollars

there is a forecast real decrease of $22 million or 2.676 per cent. The estimated real increase of 0.2 per cent in the total cost of goods and services supplied to Department of National Defence during the fiscal period 1974/75 as compared to fiscal period 1973/74, reported in response to question No. 1,325 in February, 1975 has now shifted to a real decrease of 2.676 per cent due to the availability of an additional three months of actual expenditure data. This estimate could be further revised following analysis of final expenditure reports in July, 1975. For fiscal year 1975/76 the estimated level of expenditure on goods and services is $1,109 million. Using the same procedures, when this estimate is deflated to fiscal year 74/75 dollars it amounts to $983 million for a real increase of $51 million or 5.47 per cent over fiscal year 74/75. The source of these data are the Department of National Defence Economic Model as described in the response to question No. 2,181. (See table).


UIC-SEIZURES OF SALARIES IN 1973-74 IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many salary seizures were made against unemployment insurance recipients during the 1973-1974 fiscal year (a) in the Province of Quebec (b) in each Quebec district office?
2.	How many seizure threats were sent to unemployment insurance recipients during the same fiscal year (a) in the Province (b) in each Quebec district office?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) 504.
Number of salary seizures -
Offices	fiscal year
Longueuil	10
Montreal-East	169
Montreal-West	1
Quebec	48
Sherbrooke	161
Chicoutimi	57
Chandler	9
Rimouski	10
Rouyn	3
Regional Office	36
Total for the province:	504
2.	Not available.


*CBC-HIRING OF FREELANCERS TO VISIT SOUTH EAST ASIA
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Did CBC hire or contract for a freelancer or freelancers to visit South East Asia on an assignment including, in whole or in part, a search for the son of Errol Flynn and, if so (a) what was the specific assignment (b) who made it (c) what was the projected cost (d) what was the actual cost (e) what is the name or names of any freelancer or freelancers?
2.	(a) As of April 1, 1975, in what locations were the freelancer or freelancers involved (b) what was the last date on which CBC had direct communication with the freelancer or freelancers?
3.	How did CBC come to enter into this arrangement with the freelancer or freelancers?
May 13, 1975

4.	(a) How much film footage, audio and other interview material from this undertaking was in the hands of CBC as of April 1, 1975 (b) on what programme or programmes was such material used?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: On occasion the CBC has engaged freelance personnel to gather film material on the war in South East Asia. The CBC has not, however, engaged anyone to search for the missing son of Errol Flynn.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On July 1, 1867, what was the debt of (a) Canada (b) each province which formed Confederation?
2.	What was the debt of each province when they joined Confederation and on what date did this occur?
3.	On July 1, 1974, what was the debt of (a) Canada (b) each province?


John Napier Turner: 1. Gross debt as at July 1, 1867 ($ millions): Canada, 79.8; New Brunswick, 7.9; Nova Scotia, 9.3; Total, 97.0.
2.	Gross debt on joining Confederation: Prince Edward Island, June 26, 1873, 4.1; British Columbia, May 16, 1871, 1.5; Newfoundland, March 23, 1949, 6.1; Manitoba, May 12, 1870, 0; Alberta, July 20, 1905, 0; Saskatchewan, July 20, 1905, 0.
3.	Please see reply to question No. 1,568, answered April 7, 1975.


VALUE OF ALL SHARES IN THE CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the (a) par value (b) book value (c) market value (i) of each share (ii) of all shares in the various chartered banks?
2.	On October 31, 1974, how many shares were held by each bank?


John Napier Turner: 1. (a), (b) and (c) (i) Value of each share of chartered banks at October 31, 1974:
Par	Book	MarketValue	Value** 1*	Value*2!$	$	$Bank of Montreal	2.00	11.79	12.50The Bank of Nova Scotia	2.00	21.72	36.00The Toronto-Dominion Bank	2.00	19.83	34.75La Banque Provinciale du Canada	2.00	10.12	12.50Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	2.00	14.94	22.75The Royal Bank of Canada	2.00	15.54	28.75Banque Canadienne Nationale	2.00	14.65	13.88The Mercantile Bank of Canada	5.00	6.88	16.00Bank of British Columbia	10.00	26.00	18.25Unity Bank of Canada	5.00	7.14	3.20
(ii) Value of all shares of chartered banks at October 31, 1974:
Order Paper Questions
Par	Book	MarketValue	Value*1!	Value*2*$	$	$Bank of Montreal	68,343,750	402,855,072	427,148,348The Bank of Nova Scotia	37,125,000	403,210,539	668,750,000The Toronto-Dominion	Bank	33,750,000	334,651,310	586,406,250La Banque Provinciale	du Canada	11,700,000	59,196,670	73,125,000Canadian Imperial Bank	of Commerce	69,680,000	520,367,086	792,610,000The Royal Bank of	Canada	66,528,000	516,786,385	956,340,000Banque Canadienne	Nationale	14,000,000	102,556,590	97,160,000The Mercantile Bank of	Canada	30,000,000	41,250,640	96,000,000Bank of British Columbia	5,105,550	13,274,320	9,317,629Unity Bank of Canada	16,917,785	24,163,299	10,827,382Total	353,150,085	2,418,311,911	3,717,184,699(1)	Calculated by dividing shareholders' equity (capital paid up, rest account and undivided profits) by the number of oustanding shares.(2)	Based on closing prices on the Toronto Stock Exchange on October 31, 1974.
2. Section 75(2)(c) of the Bank Act prohibits the acquisition by a bank of shares of the capital stock of the bank or any other bank. On October 31, 1974 the outstanding number of shares of each Canadian bank was as follows: Bank of Montreal, 34,171,875; The Bank of Nova Scotia, 18,562,500; The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 16,875,000; La Banque Provinciale du Canada, 5,850,000; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 34,840,000; The Royal Bank of Canada, 33,264,000; Banque Canadienne Nationale, 7,000,000; The Mercantile Bank of Canada, 6,000,000; Bank of British Columbia, 510,555; Unity Bank of Canada, 3,383,557.


GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING DEVICES-FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' CLOTHING-DC-10 AEROPLANES
Mr. Ellis: 1.	Have Ground Proximity Warning Devices been installed on any aircraft presently in service in (a) Air Canada (b) other Canadian airlines and, if not, are regulations being considered to request such installation?
2.	Is the clothing used by flight attendants on airlines flying in Canada subject to CTC regulations with regard to being fire or flame
resistant?
3.	(a) Has the alleged major problem with cargo doors on DC-10 Aircraft been corrected on any airlines flying in or over Canada (b) has a retrofit been carried out on such aircraft, particularly in Canadian airlines?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
There are no Ground Proximity Warning Devices installed in Air Canada aeroplanes, (b) One Canadian air carrier, CP Air, has Ground Proximity Warning Devices installed in their new B747s, and two new B727s also have these devices installed. Regulations in respect of the installation of Ground Proximity Warning Devices in certain Canadian aeroplanes operated by air carriers, are under active consideration, and the Ministry has a Ground Proximity

May 13, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Warning Device installed in a Ministry Jetstar aeroplane for evaluation purposes.
2.	There are no regulations that clothing worn by flight attendants flying on Canadian air carriers be fire or flame resistant.
3.	(a) The United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, issued an Airworthiness Directive during April 1974 that required incorporation on or before July 1, 1974, of modifications to preclude false door latch warnings, and to ensure positive latching of DC-10 cargo doors. This Airworthiness Directive was also mandatory on DC-10 aeroplanes operated into or over Canada by air carriers from other countries in accordance with their ICAO Agreement, (b) There are no DC-lOs operated by Canadian air carriers.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK EXPENDITURES FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION
Mr. Wise: 1.	For each year 1972, 1973 and 1974, how much money was spent on advertising and promotion in (a) Canada (b) Ontario by the Canadian Industrial Development Bank?
2.	For the same years, how many persons were employed by CIDB in (a) Canada (b) Ontario?


John Napier Turner: It has not been the practice to answer detailed questions concerning the internal administration of the Industrial Development Bank inasmuch as the Industrial Development Bank Act places the responsibility for its management in the hands of its Board of Directors.


OLYMPIC GAMES-PROVISION RCMP PERSONNEL
Mr. Schumacher: Are any plans being made, or have they been made, to provide additional RCMP (a) personnel to assist in any way with the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 and, if so (i) how many persons will assist (ii) what are the ranks of each group (iii) what type of services will be performed (iv) what costs are involved (b) equipment and, if so (i) what equipment (ii) what is the purpose of the provision (iii) what costs are involved in each case?


William Warren Allmand: (a) Yes. (i) Approximately 300. (ii) The rank structure is not yet determined, (iii) Primarily to provide physical protection to visiting dignitaries, (iv) Costs involved will include wages, transportation, lodging and meals, (b) Yes. (i) The capital purchases will primarily involve communications equipment, (ii) The specific purpose is an integral part of the security measures and disclosure at this time would not be in the public interest, (iii) The specific cost is an integral part of the security measures and disclosure at this time would not be in the public interest.


LOANS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. Gauthier (Roverval): During the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, did the Department of Finance make loans to foreign countries and, if so (a) how many (b) at what rate of interest (c) to what countries (d) what amount was loaned to each country (e) for how many years (f) for what reasons?


John Napier Turner: The
Department of Finance made no loans to foreign countries in the years 1970, 1971, 1973 and 1974.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS TO RETURNS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $2,646,315 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1972-73 in the constituency of Westmount, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONTRACTS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many classifications are there for the various contracts made possible by the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What are such classes?
3.	Is it the practice of the Department to have its purchasing agents orientated to a particular class of product buying and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair in order that the House may go into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 12, consideration in committee of the whole of certain items of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 58 and 59-Mrs. Morin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Vote 1-Headquarters-Operating expenditures including reimbursement of the Ministry of Transport revolving fund in the amount of $200,000 for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed and authority to spend revenue received during the year, $18,467,000.
Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Chairman, the minister had an interesting day yesterday as we started this experiment of marrying the old rules with the new. The minister, depart-
May 13, 1975

mental officials and members of the House were all trying to find out how parliamentarians can best scrutinize the expenditures of any department, not only the Department of Transport which the minister himself has said is a mess. This is a real problem for any ordinary member, but I know the minister is enjoying the experience.
The minister and I came to the House at the same time. He has always been on the government side, however, and has never had to worry about the scrutiny or accountability of estimates. While he is in many ways a great parliamentarian, perhaps he does not appreciate the frustrations of a member of the opposition with this kind of procedure. It was even worse when we were in committee for days at a time under the old rules and a minister and his officials had to remain until their estimates were passed.
When I came here in 1965, the total estimates of the federal government were $7.2 billion. When the rules changed in 1968 and the committee of supply disappeared to be replaced by the rather sterile procedure of opposition days and days for considering supply in the House, coincidentally perhaps, government spending seemed to run faster than Niagara Falls in the middle of spring: from $7.2 billion in 1965, spending increased to $28.2 billion in 1974. The increase in this year's budget over last year's is slightly more than $6 billion-almost the total amount of government spending in 1965, the year the minister and I first came to this House. I know this is not the minister's responsibility and that he is only responsible for the Department of Transport.
I hope that this experiment of having meaningful discussion with the minister on the floor of the House, in committee of the whole, will work out well. It could do away with the frustrations of members of the opposition who try to get answers to questions about the almost runaway government spending. I am glad we are trying this experiment; it should be an improvement over the old system where a minister sometimes had to stay in the House for a month before an item was passed because members of the opposition were perhaps given to rhetoric. I think this method is a compromise.
Madam Chairperson, Madam Chairlady-whatever you are-you are most courteous, and the most gracious ornament the chair has had. I say that because it is such a beautiful summer's day outside.
There are two points I want to make. I want to ask some pertinent questions about the Department of Transport and the dredging problems in this country. The second question is national in scope and has real interest for Atlantic Canada. I ask, what has happened to Atlantic transportation policy? In the words of the minister's predecessor, the Atlantic adjustment and freight assistance legislation was to be the first plank in an over-all, comprehensive Atlantic transportation policy. We heard those words when we last considered a legislative enactment dealing specifically with Atlantic transportation problems.
I wish to ask the minister two questions which involve the Department of Transport and dredging contracts in Canada. One has to tread a careful line here and not trespass on territory involved in court proceedings. There
Business of Supply
are certain areas which can be touched on; for instance, the problems of lack of supervision and control in dredging procedures, accounting procedures, and so on. These can be touched on without infringing upon matters under consideration by the courts.
My first question concerns discrepancies in dredging contracts. The reports of Auditors General for 12 years have referred to such discrepancies. I appreciate that Treasury Board, in a sense, has primary responsibility, and I know that many of these contracts are authorized by the Department of Transport and carried out by the Department of Public Works. The Department of Transport initiates requests for dredging. As I say, these matters were first raised in Auditors General reports.
My question is this: Has anybody's position in the department been changed; has anyone been fired or reprimanded because of problems to do with dredging contracts, overruns in contracts or lack of supervision? In other words, has anyone been held accountable, as it has been well documented in Auditors General reports for 12 years that there have been discrepancies and overruns in dredging contracts? Has internal disciplinary action been taken by the minister against anyone in the Department of Transport, or anyone in the Department of Public Work? Has anybody besides the minister taken responsibility for the improper supervision, or lack of supervision with regard to dredging contracts involving thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayer's money? That is the first question.
My second question is this: Have different procedures been implemented within the Department of Transport in the awarding of dredging contracts or their supervision? Again, I realize that the Department of Public Works is involved in this matter and many dredging contracts are initiated by the Department of Transport and carried out by the Department of Public Works; sometimes contracts are given to a subcontractor. Nevertheless, someone has jurisdiction or authority; that is obvious. Is anyone within the bureaucracy of the department to be held accountable? I do not want the minister to name anybody, but is there someone at whose feet this matter can be laid? Was anyone sloppy in administering dredging contracts? That is the gist of what I am driving at.
Therefore, my second question really is this: After this matter was brought to the government's attention through Auditors General reports, were changes made in procedure? Were dredging contracts awarded differently? Was there any change in the relationship between the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works with respect to the implementation of dredging contracts?
According to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, the minister has over-all responsibility. Certainly, he shares that responsibility with others; that is the theory under which we operate. Obviously, the minister must take over-all responsibility. Can he say, without naming names, if anyone has been subjected to internal disciplinary action? Have changes in personnel been made, or have changes in procedure been adopted since this matter was first brought to the attention of the minister and his predecessors? As Auditors General have drawn attention to this matter for 12 years, I would be amazed to learn that efforts have not been made somewhere along the line to
5740

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
change procedures in an attempt to overcome discrepancies. I suggest that in the awarding of dredging contracts there has been at least sloppiness and, at most, negligence. I am staying away completely from any suggestion of criminality.
Let me give specific examples. Although they are not covered by these estimates, they show what can happen. One incident took place in 1963 concerning a development to do with the St. Maurice River. In that case, the Department of Transport asked the Department of Public Works to do some dredging work in the St. Maurice River in connection with the development of a municipal park and marina by the city of Trois-Rivieres. The Public Works Department stated that it would be prepared to recommend only the sharing of the cost of dredging the access channel, which would mean a financial outlay of about $9,000, but that it could accept no financial responsibility for the mooring basin and the berthing area associated with the municipal park. The department suggested that the city should negotiate a contract for the dredging and that the payment by the department would be in the form of a contribution to the city. In other words, the Department of Public Works said, "We can only do so much."
It had been a long-term policy of the Department of Public Works to limit its participation in the cost of dredging access channels from private areas to main channels to sharing the cost equally with those desiring such access, and not to accept any financial responsibility for dredging slips or berth areas considered to be of a private nature. That, at any rate, is what the department said to the city of Trois-Rivieres. But in January, 1963, Treasury Board gave the Department of Public Works $45,000 to cover the full cost of dredging not only the access channel but the berth and mooring areas.
I appreciate that the contract involved the Department of Public Works and Treasury Board, but I want to know whether the Department of Transport was involved in any way with the contract concerning the St. Maurice River at Trois-Rivieres. Originally, the department agreed on a contract costing $9,000, but in January, 1963, Treasury Board gave the Department of Public Works $45,000 to cover the full cost of dredging of the marina and berth areas.
I suggest that Treasury Board should never have given the Department of Public Works this money. That action was at variance with established policy. As well, it was open to question because there is a long-standing policy which says that financial assistance may be given to outside organizations only from parliamentary appropriations specifically provided or intended for such assistance. This was a payment which had never been approved by parliament. It was for dredging which was, obviously, of a private nature and which would enhance, in effect, a private operation.
In 1966, further interesting examples of dredging irregularities arose. These involved more directly the Department of Transport. A number of test borings for dredging work were made which proved to be inadequate. In at least four Auditors General reports, dredging or construction costs exceeded estimates because test borings produced results that did not accurately reflect the nature of the terrain to be dredged or excavated. Of course,

Treasury Board has the over-all supervision of the expenditure of money; it has the final responsibility. I must say I tried to bring this matter forward at the time Treasury Board estimates were on the floor of the House last Friday. However, because of a procedural hassle and other problems at that time, it was not possible to ask these questions.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville.


Mr. Nystrom:: Does the minister want to reply before I ask some questions?


B. Keith Penner: I am sorry but I must inform the hon. minister that the hon. member chose to speak for 15 minutes; his time has therefore expired. Perhaps the minister could take note of the questions and answer them this evening.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Chairman, I want to direct a few questions to the Minister of Transport. The part of the country I come from has for a long time benefited from the Crowsnest pass agreement of many, many years ago with regard to shipping grain. Recently there has been a bit of controversy in the prairies because of a series of telegrams sent to the Premier of Saskatchewan by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Many statements have been made by the minister and other Liberal politicians in western Canada, including the Prime Minister, and a lot of farmers are worried that the present government will change the Crowsnest pass agreement which provides lower shipping costs for grain shipped by prairie farmers.
I want to ask the minister his position with regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement. What concerns me is that the Minister of Justice seems to be getting too involved in the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport should be the one to decide whether there is to be a change in the agreement. What is the minister's position with regard to the Crowsnest pass agreement? Will he answer yes or no as to whether there will be a change in that agreement between now and the next election which will probably be some time in 1978?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I have stated in the House, and in the west, my position as far as the Crowsnest rates are concerned. The Crowsnest pass agreement, the Maritime Freight Rates Act, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and many other special measures exist to help one region or one product. This is part of the policy on which we are working. There is no doubt that the Crowsnest pass rate should be part of our national policy. However, in what form will it be? My only interest is the advantage it will give to the western farmers. I do not think they should have any worse deal under any future policy.
May 13, 1975

The Maritime Freight Rates Act was modified last year; in fact, it was improved: we increased the 30 per cent subsidy to 50 per cent for exports from the Atlantic provinces. I do not think anyone in the department or in the government thinks we should get rid of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. That does not mean that in the future, in co-operation with the Atlantic provinces, we will not find a better formula for helping industrialization or the export trade in that very important region of Canada.
I would like this to be clear. This is an advantage to the western farmers. If ever the policy is changed, the advantage should be no less than it is now. Whether this will be forever, I cannot say. I cannot say that no statute of Canada or even the constitution of Canada will never be changed. How could I say that? However, I can say that it is our intention to keep the advantages which the farmers in the west now receive.


Andrew Hogan: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I ask the minister to correct himself. I think this needs correction. He said the Maritime Freight Rates Act-


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor for the purpose of asking questions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: With respect, the minister is not very clear. He talked about the benefits of the Crowsnest agreement and the possibility of giving those benefits to the farmers in a different form. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said the same thing in the House yesterday: he said he would like to see the benefits preserved but perhaps in a different way. The farmers are worried about what might be that different form. Can the minister give an absolute guarantee that the government will not tamper with the Crowsnest agreement between now and the next federal election? This is what the farmers in the prairie provinces are asking me.
I would like the minister to be a little more clear. Will he, or will he not, tamper with the Crowsnest agreement? He talks about a different form. To what kind of form is he referring? What kind of benefits is he talking about? I want to know definitely.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, even if it seems the hon. member did not understand what I said, I know that he did understand. He wants me to say that Crowsnest is there and will remain there, without any change, forever.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Until 1978. At least until that time.


Jean Marchand: Chances are we would not have time to change it before then. If there is a change before 1978, which I doubt very much, it will keep the advantages and benefits the farmers now have. I sometimes go to the west. It is unfortunate the hon. member does not go more often. The farmers understand what I am saying. They do not care about the name; what they want is a guarantee that they will not have to pay more for the movement of grain. We want to keep this is in the same way as we have the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I expect a question later about that, and I am ready to answer it.


An hon. Member:: He's waffling.
Business of Supply


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My hon. friend says the minister is waffling. I heard the minister say-this is what I am nervous about-that if there is any change, the farmers will still have the same benefits. Having him think that is not good enough. Can he guarantee there will be no change whatsoever which will be detrimental to the farmers, between now and the next election?


Jean Marchand: The only thing I can say, as Minister of Transport, as one who presided over the new policy which is going to be known, I hope, in a short while-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the Marchand policy?


Jean Marchand: -is that at no moment did we discuss in our working group that the Crowsnest pass rates should be changed. We are going to work on freight rates; we are going to work in co-operation with the Atlantic provinces, but nobody is going to make me make a statement-and I hope this is clear-that something which is in the statutes of Canada is not going to be changed. I am not going to make any definite statement, because I do not have this power and any minister who contended that he did have this power should not, I think, be in a democracy but should be somewhere else.
We are ready to protect the farmers and give them the advantages that they have; either to keep them under the present formula or under any other formula to which everybody, or the majority, would agree. I really do not
mind,	and I am sure the farmers don't mind; only those who are ready to exploit politically the symbol of Crowsnest pass rates discuss this question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yesterday in the House, Madam Chairman, as reported at page 5676 of Hansard, in response to a question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board said:
I indicated that in my view the test whether such a change could be made was really dependent upon the will of the farmers themselves.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport what mechanism will be established to determine the will of the farmers. Will it be the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who makes that decision? It really worries me, if that is the case. I would like to remind the Minister of Transport that it was not our party or any other opposition party in the House which first started the question about what the government was doing about the Crowsnest pass agreement. It was the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, in his speech in Edmonton, who first said there might be some changes made to it. Now he says that any changes would depend upon the will of the farmers. How do we interpret that will? Is the minister thinking of a plebiscite? Is the minister in charge of the Wheat Board going to interpret their will? I ask this question because his interpretation of their will is often different from
mine,	or different from that of the farm organizations. After all, you are the Minister of Transport, not him.
I am very tired of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board meddling with the Minister of Agriculture, meddling with the Minister of Transport, meddling with several other ministers. Is he a czar? Is he the king of the
29561-20'/i

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
government? What does he mean? I want to know from you what he means when he says he will interpret the will of the farmers.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I think that on the principle involved here nobody can contest that it is very important to know the will of the farmers. I do not think you oppose the will of the farmers, as I am sure the hon. member will agree. What the hon. member is asking is, how you would define, or how you would get to know the will of the farmers. I suggest he asks the Minister of Justice exactly what he means and what method he proposes to use.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is not the minister we are questioning today the Minister of Transport? Surely to goodness this falls under your purview as it is a freight rate question. If he is going to decide to meddle with your department, why in the devil don't you slap his hand? You should be making that decision, not the Minister of Justice; right?


Jean Marchand: Such a decision, a very important one, will be made by the cabinet after a recommendation of one minister whose name, now, is the Minister of Transport; and nobody else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have it very clearly, then, that it is the Minister of Transport who will make the recommendations regarding the Crowsnest rate, regarding transportation matters, not the Minister of Justice. It will be you.


B. Keith Penner: Order. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that he is supposed to address the Chair.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to go back to the subject of dredging and ask the minister a question or two. I was amazed when the alleged bid-rigging-I say "alleged" because nothing has been proven-came to light and charges were laid as to how it could have happened, how the government could find itself in a position where something was alleged to have been going on for such a long time and on such a scale. I think the answer came when the Minister of Public Works disclosed the guidelines which have intended to protect the public in the future.
Apparently there are dredging contracts let by the Department of Public Works, by the Department of Transport, by the National Harbours Board and by the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. As a result of this, as the government now recognizes by having set up the safeguarding committee, there is not sufficient expertise, apparatus or machinery available in Public Works, Transport or anywhere else to protect the public. As a result of the lack of adequate machinery in the Department of Transport, for example, there was no way in which the public could be protected. The people in the department had no suspicion that in fact the bids were so far above what they should be that bid-rigging was quite possible.
I would like to know how the Minister of Transport can attempt to justify this fragmentation of authority in the field of dredging. Some of it is done in Transport, some in Public Works, some here and some there. How can the minister justify this situation having continued, I do not know for how long? When he became minister in 1973, for

example, he had reason to be suspicious about some things in Hamilton. Shortly thereafter he had reason to become suspicious about the St. Lawrence River dredging. Yet the system continued. Nobody in the government, nobody in his department, seemed to make any move in order to improve the administrative machinery or to create some unit in the government which would know enough about dredging to ensure that the bids were appropriate, and thus protect the public.
Despite the belated move the government has made to set up an improvised cabinet committee, I charge that the public of Canada has paid very dearly for the fragmentation of authority in the area of dredging. The lack of expertise in the Department of Transport meant that apparently no accurate judgment could be made as to whether bids in connection with dredging were appropriate or not, or whether contracts for the salvage of a ship were in line or not. The government apparently had no idea that there was something seriously wrong with regard to the bidding or with regard to dredging generally.
I suggest this could not have happened at all if the departments concerned had been able to assess properly, or even estimate properly, what the appropriate bids should have been in connection with these contracts. Yet the system went on year after year despite warnings by the Auditor General that contracts were running over. I make the charge that the government did not take the trouble to protect the public by setting up the necessary machinery, and as far as I can understand it failed to provide adequate measures to protect the public after contracts had been let.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, perhaps I can be as blunt as the Leader of the Opposition. Not only this government, but all governments prior to this one have been following exactly the same regulations and laws. We ask for bids and we choose the lowest, unless the lowest bidder is not in a position to do the work. If he does not have the machinery required or the ability to do the work, then I think any government would tell him that he is not going to get the job. That has been the practice.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley referred a few minutes ago to some contracts that were given in 1963. That is when Hon. Leon Balcer was minister of transport, so he should check into that. I do not know why he did not verify that beforehand.
I would be as prudent as the Leader of the Opposition. If the charges are founded, then it means there has been collusion to cheat the government. That is not the first time it has happened; it happens everywhere in the world. There is no way you can protect yourself against four, five or six firms who agree to get together and establish a floor. This was revealed in Hamilton by a commission over which I have no jurisdiction at all. The contract there was awarded by the harbour commission of Hamilton, not by the Department of Transport, and I think the hon. gentleman should ask why this commission did not make a better check than it did. As far as the other cases are concerned, hon. members will have to wait until the trial is over to see whether there has been any collusion. That is all I can say.
May 13, 1975

The other day I received quite a high bid for a project in a city in the west, and there was only the one bid. I spent at least 15 days consulting all kinds of people in Justice, and so forth, and I asked them what I should do. They told me that in that particular city there was nobody else who could do the job. We assess what the job is worth, and they told me that the job was worth it and that that is what we should do; otherwise we would have to go to Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this means there are some weaknesses and holes in the system. However, we now have some new rules under which all bids are submitted to Justice to see whether they can see something we have not seen. We are trying to be more strict. If there is a big difference between what we assess and the bid of the lowest bidder, then in such case perhaps we should scrap the whole thing and start all over again or tell the firm in question that we suspect there is something wrong.
Perhaps this sort of rigging has happened in the past; I do not know. The inquiry may reveal that the same situation has existed in many other cases. Perhaps it took place under the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I have no way of knowing; but he was applying exactly the same regulations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, I do not know whether it happened under Sir Robert Borden or under Sir John A. Macdonald, but we are talking about the present administration. I cannot make a charge that there was collusion, but I am assuming that charges have been laid by the government. I make the assertion that if there was collusion in bid-rigging in connection with dredging contracts with the Department of Transport, then it was because the Department of Transport was a sitting duck for such bid-rigging and collusion: it did not have the expertise and apparatus to know whether or not it was being taken to the cleaners.
I ask the minister, through you, Madam Chairman, why this was allowed to continue for a year or so after the minister became suspicious. It was not until the whole thing was out in the open that the Minister of Public Works announced in this House the appointment of a committee, which itself is probably quite inadequate.
The minister says that something happened in Hamilton. I am not blaming him for that. The whole organization behind dredging operations for harbour commissions and so on may very well need looking into. But I am asking him this. Apart from talking about what may have happened 20 or 40 years ago, is there any way he can explain to this committee and to the people of Canada why he, as minister, and why his predecessor and the government as a whole, allowed to continue an obviously inadequate system of administering dredging contracts, one which apparently permitted the Government of Canada and the people of Canada to be taken to the cleaners for years?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I must correct something which has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether he was including me when he said we knew something was wrong in the awarding of dredging contracts a year ago. If so, I tell him
Business of Supply
that that is not true. The first time I heard about that was at the beginning of March. Immediately I took action, as I did in the case of Air Canada. But one year ago I was not aware of anything of this kind. If he contends that the Minister of Public Works knew, I would be happy to be here when he puts the question to the minister, because I do not think he is the type of man to let that kind of thing go on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, I am not going to get sidetracked by charges of who did what, or who did not know what.


Jean Marchand: You are the one who brought that up.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am saying that the system in the Department of Transport-and I dare say the same applies to the system in Public Works-was very inadequate to protect the public, and that there was no justification for allowing it to continue through the years, particularly in view of the reports of the Auditor General. As I say, I do not intend to be sidetracked by statements about who did what, or about what the minister found out subsequently.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the system which existed in Transport is the same system that existed everywhere in the government and in all governments I know of in Canada. It is the system of asking for tenders and bids. I do not know what the future has in store for those who might be involved, but up until now no civil servant has been involved, accused, charged or even suspected of wrongdoing. When four or five firms control a whole industry, they do not need any civil servants; they just decide themselves what they are going to do.


J. Michael Forrestall: That damns you all the more for not keeping abreast of it.


Jean Marchand: Then in one case it became apparent, the police found out and we acted as quickly as we could. There may be other situations and perhaps hon. members opposite will be able to give us some help. There are certain industries where it is almost impossible to find a second bidder. For example, if you want some transistors, outside of IBM of Canada where would you go? Where would the competition come from? Even if you went to the United States, perhaps you would have to go to IBM even there. Certain industries are monopolized, so we have to be very careful. As I say, we have followed the rules. No civil servants have been charged or suspected of wrongdoing.
I do not see why the Leader of the Opposition would make that kind of attack. Perhaps he is suggesting that the prevailing system in Canada is not foolproof and we should see how we can improve it. That is right, and that is what we are trying to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have just one more sentence, Madam Chairman. The system is inadequate and the government has finally recognized this in setting up a makeshift kind of citizens' protective committee. The system is inadequate to anyone who has made an examination, if only

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
because of the fact the Department of Public Works was responsible for part of it, the Minister of Transport for another part of it, and somebody else for another part of it. We were just taken to the cleaners.


B. Keith Penner: Order. The time allotted to the hon. Leader of the Opposition has now expired.

Before recognizing the hon. member for Davenport, I should like to point out that the time of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville was cut short by one minute, so perhaps I might recognize that hon. member for one question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If I have one minute, I will take 20 seconds and the minister can take 40 seconds. If there are any changes whatsoever which will limit the benefits of the Crowsnest pass rates, will those changes take place before Mr. Justice Hall has had time to report on western transportation problems, with recommendations to the government; or will they, if there are any, come after Mr. Justice Hall's report?


Jean Marchand: If you want my opinion, and you will understand that is all I can give, it is no.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Chairman, there are three brief questions I should like to direct to the minister. The first relates to whether the Minister of Transport is playing an active role in relation to urban growth by providing Canadians who are prepared to live in smaller centres in the neighbourhood of metropolitan regions with adequate commuter services that would permit them to work in large metropolises.
It is quite clear that we have now reached the stage where certain cities are becoming very large, and there are certain towns and small cities in Canada where Canadians might buy homes and settle at a lower cost while still working at their jobs in the large industrial centres. There is a growing body of Canadians who feel that the urban growth of our metropolitan areas can be slowed down if we adopt a transportation policy which will encourage the growth of smaller centres. Is the minister actively involved with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in developing a policy of that kind?
My second question stems from an observation I have made over the years of bus terminals, railway stations and airports. On the face of it, one wonders whether the allocation of taxpayers' money for travelling Canadians is proportionately divided between those travelling by ground transportation as opposed to those travelling by air. In other words, putting it in reverse, one gets the impression that we are investing a substantial amount of taxpayers' funds for that portion of the public travelling by air which is much smaller than that provided for those who travel by train or bus.
One gets the impression that we pay much greater attention to and place more emphasis and financial support on air travel for those who use that service than we do in respect of bus or train transportation. I would be very grateful if the minister could indicate whether this is a

superficial appearance, or whether in fact there is something in what I have suggested.
My final question relates to a local matter. In Toronto we have a large project called the Metro Centre which has been in the hands of a corporation called Metro Centre Development. This involves large tracts of lands which are publicly owned, including land owned by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. I understand that the current agreement on Metro Centre expires in November of this year. If a new contract is to be arrived at following the expiration of the existing one, it would be helpful to know whether the Ministry of Transport and Canadian National will insist that the publicly-owned land remain under public control and managed, in terms of planning and utilization, by the local municipality rather than by the private developer who is developing the specific tracts of land. Those are my questions.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I was not involved in this discussion until January 20, if my memory serves me well, when Premier Davis invited me to Toronto to discuss this matter with him, his officials and some of the senior officers of the Ministry of Transport. Since then we have been looking into this matter and a report will probably be produced within a few weeks, at which time we will know exactly what is to happen concerning the ownership of this land. I have my own opinion on this, and when I get that report I will see how my opinion compares with the opinion expressed in it. That is the situation at the present time. We are awaiting the report of this study, and it is only when we receive it that we will indicate exactly what we are going to do.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Chairman, I will be very brief and I will stay with one aspect of transportation, that is, the proposed Pickering airport in the Toronto area. I only have two or three brief questions, but before I ask them I should like to summarize the background of several contradictions I believe exist in statements by the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister regarding this proposed airport.
It is a publicly known fact that several surveys have been conducted in the metropolitan area. The Elliott Research Corporation carried out one survey, the Toronto Star carried out another, and a poll survey was conducted by the Canadian Facts Company Limited. Within the metropolitan area, 61.4 per cent of those who had an opinion were opposed to the airport decision. Even in the Malton impact area, which the government argues will benefit from reduced noise as a result of the second airport, the majority of those who had an opinion were against the airport.
The Ministry of Transport's traffic forecasts do not reflect the current economic and fuel picture and the recent decline in international air travel. Furthermore, the government has made absolutely no effort to spread peak hour load which is the real measure of airport capacity at the Malton airport today. The Gibson commission, for example, concluded that provision of terminal capacity at Malton would not be a problem until 1985, even assuming the inflated Ministry of Transport's passenger forecasts which will not be realized for many years after 1985. So that is an inflated figure.
May 13, 1975

Further terminal needs, should they become evident over the next decade, could be met either by more efficient use of lands within the present airport boundary, such as by achieving the same ratio of passenger handling capacity to required land area as the present Terminal 1, or by annexing a moderate amount of vacant industrial land. There is definitely no spreading of noise involved in the placing of extra terminals at the present Malton airport.
Runway capacity at Malton is no problem except during the peak hour when strong north-south winds limit use to one runway, 14-32. Opening one runway at Pickering in the east-west direction does not solve the runway capacity problem. When additional runway capacity is required at Malton, a fourth independent runway in the north-south direction within Malton's existing boundaries could be added. The minister's department admits that at a separation of 4,400 feet, no more people will be affected than with the three-runway situation. The airport inquiry commission agrees that with the addition of such a runway, Malton can handle Ministry of Transport forecasts to beyond 1990.
It can be assumed, also, that due to technological advances noise will continue to decrease as long as realistic assumptions are made about the phasing out of DC-8 type aircraft and some control over night flights, particularly of noisy aircraft, is exerted even if no new noise technology is introduced. This has far more effect on noise than the government's plan in respect of Pickering. In addition, if the government pursues its own proposal to have aircraft meet standards similar to FAR 36 at Malton by 1980, the noise reduction will be even more dramatic. Once all aircraft meet FAR 36 standards, the additional beneficial effect of opening a second airport is very small.
The minister gave the following answer to a question I asked in the House on February 21 regarding the airport. He stated, as reported at 3436 of Hansard:
If the hon. gentleman can bring some kind of evidence to show that the majority of the population is against the airport, I am ready to revise the whole thing.
This evidence has been presented very emphatically through the media and through different polls. I expect my first question is obvious. Why is the minister not sticking to the statement he made in this House, along with the statement of the Prime Minister, to the effect that if there were even 51 per cent of the people around the Pickering area against the airport, the government would reconsider the matter and look into the different options? Surely an airport as expensive as this-it is expensive and I will be asking a couple of questions about the expense-is not needed at this time; the money could be handed over for the purpose of helping the housing situation which is drastic in the Toronto area. I believe the number of housing starts in that area has been reduced in the past year by 60 per cent.
The first question I would ask is whether the minister is taking a different position now from the one he took in the statement he made in the House, and outside the House, and one the Prime Minister took in his statements.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the answer is very simple. I have no idea how the inquiry was con-
Business of Supply
ducted, who was consulted or what was the form of the inquiry. One thing we did in respect of Pickering which we did not do in respect of any other airport, and certainly not in respect of Mirabel, was that before we chose the site of Pickering we had many consultations, including consultations with the government of Ontario, and everybody thought it was the best place. When I say "everybody," I do not refer to the people around Pickering but I refer to the government of Ontario and those who are involved in the building of the airport.
So it is one thing if the population of Ontario or of greater Toronto does not want this airport, but no Gallup poll or anything of that kind was conducted which would suggest this. I did not need to conduct an inquiry: our information was very instructive. The results the hon. member produces in the House may have some bearing, but we had the Gibson inquiry and its report. In that report, the arguments were made by a person who was in no way tied to the government and who, with two colleagues, gave an opinion and answers to questions which to my mind are much better than the opinions cited by the hon. gentleman.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, of course, much of the opinion stated in the Gibson inquiry report has changed since the inquiry took place. So far as the polls are concerned, surely the Toronto Star poll conducted by the Canadian Facts Company Limited would not be considered a one-sided opinion. This is a very important matter and a costly affair which I am sure will not help the majority of the people of Toronto, because they are still looking for better housing rather than a second airport. In view of this, would the minister be willing to have the government conduct its own poll concerning the situation in the Toronto area, to determine whether the people there are for, or against, that airport? I know the minister wishes to abide by the wishes of the people of that city and of Canada, so perhaps he will take it upon himself to conduct a poll of his own.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think we have done all that can normally be done in the circumstances. We even had a special inquiry. Witnesses have been heard, briefs have been presented and there has even been cross-examination of witnesses. The same conclusion was reached as that of the ministry. So far as I am concerned, the decision has been made. If another government, another minister, or someone else should change his mind, that is all right; but so far as I am concerned, this is a closed case and I will not go back on it.


Otto John Jelinek: So it can be taken that the minister either unintentionally misled the House when he made the statement or has changed his mind. The possibility exists, if sufficient pressure is put on him by the majority of the people, that he might change his mind again so far as the airport is concerned.
I should like to ask a question about the cost of the airport. Early in the year 1974, the minister stated that the Pickering airport, including construction and land, would cost $204 million. In an answer to a written question I placed on the order paper, which I received on April 7, the department stated that the authorized cost for the construction of the international airport and related facilities

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
in land approved by the government on February 20, 1975, is slightly in excess of $200 million. This relates to the figure of $204 million; but there is an addendum which says that no airport construction is included in this figure. The figure previous to this, of $204 million, included the construction.
As well, on February 20 the minister said that a runway and appropriate passenger terminal and related facilities would be built. Given the existing examples of passenger terminals at Malton and Edmonton international airports, where passengers are forced to trek considerable distances, would the minister offer his definition of an appropriate passenger terminal and the separate cost involved for the construction of the terminal facilities to begin this year, or whenever that may be? What will be the additional cost?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, I am not an architect. I cannot say exactly what kind of terminal will be built there. I presume that we will receive some designs and suggestions from technicians of all kinds, including engineers, and so forth. Then we will make up our minds. But if I am asked exactly what I mean by an appropriate terminal, I presume it would be a terminal which would receive passengers who land in Pickering. We would try to avoid what happened in Terminal 2 and have something which is convenient for the people who are going to use it. When we have the design, if the hon. member wishes I will be happy to receive him in my office. My office is not far away, and I will show the design to him.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman, that is very kind of the minister. It is assumed that the proposed airport will be an international airport. The question, of course, is whether the nednister or the government have received any assurances that international airlines will operate out of Pickering airport, seeing that the airport as it now stands in the plans will only have one runway. Several air carriers use international airports. These air carriers would be in the air at all times, and having one runway is like being half pregnant without wanting to be pregnant in the first place.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we in Canada tell foreign airlines where they can land, and in turn we negotiate with France, for example, or Great Britain, as to which airport we are supposed to use. They told us where we could land; we did not tell them where we would land. We are not free to land just anywhere in Berlin or elsewhere. This is in the agreement, and I think this is what we will do with the airlines.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired.


Otto John Jelinek: I have just a short, final question.


Gérald Laniel: That can be done if the committee accepts it, and if it can be done in a few seconds I am ready to accept the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto John Jelinek: It will just take a few seconds. I know that the minister has a great deal of interest in the development of STOL aircraft and STOL routes such as the route existing between Ottawa and Montreal. At least he had interest in this. Does this mean that with the additional airport at Pickering, the interest toward the development of STOL aircraft in Toronto-I am speaking specifically of the possibility of Toronto island as an airport for STOL aircraft-will be laid aside? Will this become secondary to Pickering?


Jean Marchand: This is an experiment we are doing with Twin-Otters between Ottawa and Montreal. To this date we are very satisfied with the success of this experiment. We do not have all the elements. Some airlines have already asked for permission to operate STOL systems between certain Canadian cities. We are not ready to allow that because our experiment is not completed. Nothing has been excluded. We have not excluded the island in Toronto, nor the island in Montreal; and if ever we decide to have a STOL program for those two cities, those might be the proper places to have them.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the previous speaker because his last question ties in exactly with what I want to discuss with the minister this afternoon. I would like to state that as far as I and, I think, many members of this House are concerned, the topic of transport is probably one of the most all-encompassing topics up for discussion at any time, because through the transport policies of governments of Canada this nation was brought together in the first place. It is through transport policy that it has kept together, and through transport policy in the future it will be determined how well this nation remains together as a corporate entity.
I want to direct my remarks to the minister, not on the primary level of air traffic-Air Canada or CP Air-but to take a look at the over-all scheme for regional air carriers and the use, as the previous member was discussing, of the hub and spoke concept of STOL air service. In my opinion the success or failure of transport in the future will depend on the proper integration of all types of transport, whether it be by land, sea, air, rail or bus, and in particular the phasing in of a comprehensive and well run hub and spoke STOL air service; because I think the success of our national railways in years past has been primarily through use of feeder lines, the small lines which were brought in to bring people from outlying areas into the centres of communication which joined up with the transcontinental systems which ran from coast to coast. I believe the hub and spoke air concept will become the feeder lines of transportation in years to come.
As the minister knows, Canada, and in particular the De Havilland Aircraft Corporation, have been world leaders in the development of the STOL concept, first with the De Havilland DHC 6 Twin Otter and now with the recent unveiling of the DHC 7 and 7-R, the second generation of STOL aircraft. It is here in Canada that the augmenter-wing concept was designed, and while we are world leaders in the design and development of these aircraft and of the hub and spoke concept of transportation, our failure to use this concept of proper advantage where it would fit is something I find rather deplorable.
May 13, 1975

For the betterment of our own population I do not feel the very concept we have developed to such a high degree has been used as it should be. I would ask the minister to give this House, at some time, an indication of the progress made by his department in adopting this important concept of communications into a national transport picture and in putting it into implementation on a nationwide and regional scale.
I would like also to point out my concern, and the concern of the people I represent, about the continuing policy of our national railways of branch line abandonment both in the passenger field and the freight field. I would ask the minister to make every effort to encourage both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to stop completely the withdrawal of what I consider to be an essential element of cohesion across this country. I speak with the knowledge which comes from representing an area where the withdrawal of rail service, particularly in the passenger field, has taken place and where the effects of that withdrawal are still suffered.
I would point out that had it not been for the work of at least one private company-I refer to Bruce Coach Lines of Kincardine, Ontario-in picking up the slack which developed in the transportation system which was available to the people of western Ontario and to my particular section of the country, we would indeed be in a very difficult position at this time. Since that time the bus service facilities have been upgraded and increased. As a result, the people have started to use it. The travelling time between Kincardine and Toronto is now 3 Vi hours by bus, but it still takes 5 Vi hours by rail.
I hope the minister will give us his views on this serious situation and indicate whether this practice by the railways can be reversed, if not stopped. As a private enterprise, Canadian Pacific Railway has to be concerned with the return on investment, but Canadian National Railways is a little different in that for the most part it is financed by public money. It therefore has a duty and responsibility to provide the transportation that the people so desperately need.
I should like to return to the question of STOL. It is interesting to note that transporting people and commodities economically and efficiently is one of the things that this country does best. One reason for this is that our geographical footprint dictates it. We have 3,852,000 square miles of land mass to cover; and for those of our friends who are interested in metric measurement, that is 10,015,000 square kilometres. This includes large metropolitan areas, mountain ranges, plains and inland waters, so it has been an absolute necessity that we develop this expertise. The fact is, however, that the expertise is more essential now than at any other time in our country's history.
I should like to turn, now, to the regional development of the STOL concept. If STOL is to work, I believe it will work best in a number of networks of well planned, regional services interconnecting through the national air carriers which will provide the type of service this nation requires. The type of system operating up and down the Norwegian coast to provide isolated hamlets with air service to the larger centres, and thence to Oslo, the capital,
Business of Supply
and other centres of population and industry is an example of what can be done. The effect has been to decentralize some of the large cities. This might be useful to us, with such large centres as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver growing the way they are. We must get the people out of these centralized communities into places which need to build up their industry and population.
I should like to ask the minister what his department thinks can be done about the Toronto island airport. To my way of thinking, this airport is absolutely essential to provide the hub and spoke concept for southwestern and central Ontario. It is ideally situated and is currently licensed for STOL use on a VFR basis, but must be upgraded to a STOL IFR standard.


An hon. Member:: Not with that big needle sticking up in the middle of the city.


Crawford Douglas: That is outside the approach patterns that would be used for STOL aircraft. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward some statistics about STOL. First of all, it saves fuel. The DASH 7 will save up to $100,000 a year on 200-mile routes over the operation of the DC-9-about a 64 per cent saving in fuel.
We are all worried about the ecology and the emission of pollutants. The average car, on a 200-mile trip carrying 1.25 passengers-I will never figure out why they use 1.25 passengers; I can see one passenger, but not IV* passengers-would produce about 27 pounds of pollutant per passenger. The DC-9, on a 200-mile trip, would produce about 1.14 pounds; the bus, one pound per passenger and the train about nine-tenths of a pound. The DASH 7 would produce only six-tenths of a pound per passenger, on a 200-mile trip. That is something to think about, Mr. Chairman.
The DASH 7 also saves time, and today time is money. Let us take, as an example, a trip from the Parliament Buildings here to downtown Montreal, the Bonaventure Hotel. The total time for the trip by conventional air traffic, using a taxi from here to the airport and from the airport in Montreal, is two hours and three minutes. That is taxi time, terminal time and flying time. By STOL, using the Twin Otter plane, the total time is one hour and 22 minutes. I believe it is the answer to many of the transportation problems not only in Ontario but throughout the country. It could be used in other provinces, and to put it into operation would only cost about the same as it would to build two miles of four-lane highway in southwestern and central Ontario. Tied in with the proper rail and bus service, it would provide the people with a transportation system second to none.
If the minister has time, I would appreciate some answers to my questions, and if he has not I should like to hear from him by letter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I only have three minutes so I am going to answer rapidly. We are co-operating with the province of Ontario on the hub and spoke concept. As far as STOL is concerned, we have to complete our experiments. At the moment, we cannot use the DASH 7 because it is being tested and will not be ready for a few months or a year. The concept is of

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
interest, and that is why we have invested so much money in it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions to the minister concerning the dredging contract at Ile-d'Orleans. Initially, this contract was for dredging in the main ship channel of the St. Lawrence River below Quebec in the reach commonly known as the North Traverse, extending from St. Jean, Ile-d'Orleans to Sault au Cochon, consisting of a quantity of approximately 14 million cubic yards. The contract was to be for a period of three years commencing the summer of 1971. The estimated cost of the contract was $20,860,000, with the basis of payment being $1.49 per cubic yard.
In response to public advertisements, three bids were received. One was from J. P. Porter Ltd., McNamara Co. Ltd. and Marine Industries Ltd., a joint venture, for $20,860,000. One was from Canadian Dredge and Dock Ltd. and T. C. Gorman Ltd., a combine of two, for $28,140,000. The third was from C. A. Pitts Engineering Construction Ltd., for $30,100,000. Authority for the Department of Transport to enter into a contract with the lowest bidder was given by Treasury Board minute 706359 dated August 30, 1971, and subsequently a formal contract was entered into with the successful bidder. Since the department's estimate is identical to the price quoted by the lowest bidder, would the minister confirm my research of this item and explain this coincidence to the committee? That is my first question.
My second question relates to the minister's comments concerning the Hamilton Harbour Commission, made just a few moments ago in response to questions raised by my leader. The Hamilton Harbour Commission and the Toronto Harbour Commission are corporate bodies which are audited by the municipal auditor of the municipality which has a major interest in the commission. The minister, under the Harbour Commissions Act, may authorize an inspection of the books and records of the harbour commissions, but the Department of Transport financial audit and review branch has never made any audits or reviews of these commissions. To the best of my knowledge, the government has never asked the Auditor General or any of his staff to examine the records of the harbour commissions.
Since the present audit system of the Auditor General is not designed to detect fraud and deliberate collusion, the onus in my view is on the minister and on the government to take the necessary action. Will the minister inform this committee why he never authorized an inspection of the books and records of the harbour commissions I have mentioned?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I will need to verify the hon. member's assertion that we must verify the books of the harbour commissions. I always thought that the cities were supposed not only to supervise but to award contracts. I may be mistaken. I want to check. I should like the hon. gentleman to tell me what part of the act authorizes us to inspect those books in the city in which the commission is located. I think the city of Hamil-

ton, which awarded this contract, is also supposed to supervise.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the minister, under the Harbour Commissions Act, RSC, chapter H-l, may authorize an inspection of the books and records of harbour commissions. He has that authority but has never exercised the authority which is in RSC, chapter H-l. Surely his departmental officials can verify that statement right now.
Secondly, I should like him to answer my first question concerning the coincidence whereby the consortium composed of J. P. Porter Ltd., McNamara Company Ltd. and Marine Industries Ltd. could come up with a figure of $20,860,000 for the dredging to which I referred, exactly the same figure as estimated by the department. I think the committee deserves some explanation of that.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think you must consider that this is part of the trial or the case which is before the courts now, and I think the committee will surely have an opportunity to learn when the judgment comes down.


An hon. Member:: The judgment?


Jean Marchand: Oh, yes; a judgment will be handed down. Surely the hon. member is not asking me to give him an opinion when the matter is before the judge. The judge can hear witnesses, and he has not yet made up his mind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come, now! This is public information.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, by leaning on the fact that this case is presently before the courts, the minister is not playing fair with the committee. It is true that the vouchers and departmental files have been seized by the RCMP and that a writ has been issued; it is true that these documents are presently being held and are under investigation by the RCMP. But the questions I raised surely come within the authority of the minister and the department. After all, the bids to which I referred, the public tenders which I mentioned, are public knowledge. Public tenders were called. The three companies, making up a consortium, bid $20,860,000 for this project, exactly, the amount estimated by the department. There must have been a coincidence as between the department's estimate and the figure bid by the lowest bidder, namely, the consortium made up of the Porter Company, the McNamara Company and Marine Industries.
I do not see how the minister can refuse to answer by suggesting the matter is before the courts. I am asking him to explain how this coincidence concerning the bids occurred. For example, did someone in the department tell Porter, McNamara and Marine Industries, "Our estimate is $20,860,000"? Did someone in the minister's department volunteer this information? Did these companies ask some official how low an estimate the department itself had made for this work? Because the next highest bid was $28,140,000 the third bid was $30,100,000. There may have been collusion; I do not say there was but there may have been. Certainly, someone was in the confidence of the minister's staff if there was a tender for this contract
May 13, 1975

which was identical to the figure estimated by the minister's officials. I suggest that such a coincidence is unique and can be explained without infringing on the matter now before the courts.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am in a difficult position. I am sure the hon. member was honest in his research. But how can I explain it if the RCMP and the courts cannot explain it? I do not know how I can explain it. The RCMP have investigated this case and looked into the books of these companies and of other companies-even in my riding if you want to know. They searched everywhere. At no time did they charge or indicate that a civil servant was involved. The whole thing is now before the courts. It may be pure coincidence. If so, we will say it is a coincidence and that is all. If fraud is involved, I say to the hon. member that the police have investigated and that the courts are acting. So do not ask me why there is a coincidence unless you assume that the whole thing happened in my office. I am sure that is not what the hon. member assumes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one short question? Does the minister concede that the estimate by his officials of $20,860,000 is exactly the same figure that was paid to the consortium when they signed the contract?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we will have to check.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: After he has checked, will the minister make that information available to the committee?


Jean Marchand: Yes, certainly.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I believe most members will agree that the Minister of Transport heads one of the most important ministries of government and has one of the most important portfolios in this House. Transportation affects all Canadians. The ministry is a grass roots ministry, a department which provides service to more Canadians than any other of which I am aware.
I am a new member, as you know, Mr. Chairman; an independent without party affiliation. Nevertheless, the minister has generally co-operated with me; other ministers have, too. Actually, I have already invited the minister down to the Atlantic provinces, and particularly to the city of Moncton, so that he can see first-hand our transportation problems in the area instead of leaving it to bureaucrats. I might say that this invitation is extended to the minister's confreres. We hope they will hold a cabinet meeting in Moncton this year as this is an anniversary year for the city.
I marvel at the huge staff of the Ministry of Transport and at the huge staffs of Crown agencies and corporations which come under its authority. How many persons hold executive positions in the ministry, its agencies and Crown corporations? What is the total amount paid in salaries to them and their support staff, and overburden expenses? I imagine many members of this House ask themselves what do these people do. What is the evidence of what they do? Possibly bureaucrats have too much to say, not enough to do and assume little or no responsibility for the high wages they receive.
Business of Supply
We hear of studies for this, and studies for that, and a study of this study and another study of that study-all at substantial cost to the taxpayer; all in addition to the cost of salaries of overburdens. We need action, and we need it soon.
Maritimers are still concerned about their freight rates. The consumer is paying the shot. When will the Ministry of Transport unveil a national transportation policy and a regional transportation policy? Will the minister advise what amounts have been provided for rail line relocation, in particular for the proposed rail line relocation in the Moncton area?
I wish to ask some questions with regard to transportation problems in my constituency. I know some of the national problems; however, Moncton is the transportation centre of the maritimes. First, there is the problem of CNR pensioners and widows. I suggest to the minister that this is a problem of government because in the Atlantic provinces the railways were formerly operated by the Canadian government. I suggest the government has a responsibility to these people. Second, there is need for an improved and enlarged CNR station in Moncton. Colloquially, in Moncton, that station is called the musical shoebox. It certainly fits the description. I am told that regularly tracks are out of commission in the Atlantic region. The rolling-stock is not kept up to date. There are very serious matters concerning the safety of passengers, cargo and materials.
We also hear of lay-offs. The condition of the equipment, the rolling-stock, the trackage and the lay-offs are not consistent. I suggest if there are no lay-offs, the railway gives the excuse that they do not have the men to do the job. With the lay-offs, I suggest this is an excellent time for the railways to bring their equipment, goods and trackage up to standard. I suggest the minister has a responsibility to the public on these matters of safety.
There are other matters in so far as the budget of the Department of Transport is concerned. Recently on the order paper there were items with reference to the cost of bilingualism in the CNR and Air Canada. I would like to know the cost of implementing bilingualism and any training in the Department of Transport and the Crown corporations and agencies under that department. This matter of the cost of bilingualism is completely out of hand. It has recently been revealed that upward of $3 million was spent on this by CNR. In Air Canada, therefore, we can assume it was $4 million.
Recently, Mr. Keith Spicer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, reported that languages should be taught in school. It has occurred to me that finally this gentleman, like many members of this House, is now beginning to see the light. Linguistic problems are educational problems and should be solved within the school system of this country and not within the government. It should be done in an integrated, non-separate, uniform school system with both English and French languages being taught to all our children together. You cannot do it by teaching people at age 30 to 50 or 60.
I raise this matter here because employees of CNR, Air Canada, other Crown agencies and the Department of

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
Transport-and, for that matter, other departments of government-are in a state of fear as a result of the policy and method adopted for the implementation of bilingualism. It is unfair, unreasonable and results in poor labour relations and costs that are a burden. It is creating disunity and is separating our country. It is destroying it. These funds could, and should be used to create productive employment. The present policy detracts substantially from the service now provided by Air Canada and CNR employees. It is reducing the morale of the employees and this results in lack of initiative and fear in jobs. Bilingualism in air traffic control is creating a real problem. I suggest that this is an international, English fact and we should leave it alone.
Another matter which concerns my constituents is the reduced air service provided to the city of Moncton and, in fact, the whole province of New Brunswick. There is no direct air service between the nation's capital and the province of New Brunswick. In conjunction with the Greater Moncton Chamber of Commerce and the Moncton city council, I met with Air Canada officials. A suggestion has been made to Air Canada in order to rectify the problem. I ask the minister to use his good offices to have this matter rectified. This is one case where Air Canada can do something to produce revenue. That is something Air Canada, CNR and some other agencies and corporations of government are reluctant to do. It might mean a little diplomacy, but it can be done.
Further, for years in southeastern New Brunswick we have been without adequate passenger facilities and baggage facilities. The runways should be repaired, improved and extended. In some cases, aircraft have to come in on the wrong runway. That should not happen in this day and age. The passenger terminal is packed. Customs facilities are inadequate and should be improved. The services and facilities of that airport are taxed to capacity. I want to know from the minister if provision has been made for these additional facilities. They are needed now. Incidentally, if there are any more problems in the controversy with regard to the Pickering airport, I suggest that the minister divert the funds allocated for the Pickering airport to the needed improvements and extension of services and facilities of the Moncton airport and other needs in the Moncton and Atlantic region.
In addition, the matter of a national transportation policy and a regional transportation policy, whether the minister agrees or not, and the problem of urban transportation in its fullest and most complete definition and interpretation cannot be forgotten. These matters are most essential: they deserve the attention of the minister and his department.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member will understand that I cannot answer all the questions or deal with all the subjects he has raised, particularly with regard to bilingualism. It would take much more time that we have at the moment. There will be another opportunity. I think the hon. member is interested in knowing whether the facilities at the Moncton airport will be improved. I can say there is something in the estimates and we hope to make these improvements this year. I think the amount for this year is just over $2.5 million. With regard to how that amount will be spent, I

will have to check with the department to see exactly what they have in mind. I know there is another amount provided for in the next fiscal year. I promise the hon. member that some day I will visit Moncton so that I can see for myself what is going on. Does the hon. member want to ask a question?


Leonard C. Jones: Regarding what the minister has just said with respect to the $2.5 million, is that for the aircraft control relocation or does it include extention of the terminal facilities, including passenger and baggage facilities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, that is what I want to verify. If the hon. member has no objection, and if I cannot give him the information before the end of the day, I will write to him tomorrow telling him exactly what we intend to do with that amount of money.
* (1650)


Gérald Laniel: At this point I should inform the committee of the questions to be raised at the time of the adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale-Immigration; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants-Public Service; the hon. member for Simcoe North-National Parks.


Mr. Landers:: Mr. Chairman, as a preamble I should like to thank the Minister of Transport and his staff for their co-operation in the past. In particular, I wish to express my thanks to Lucy Dion and Judy Scott of the minister's office for their efforts on behalf of my constituents in Saint John-Lancaster.
Mr. Chairman, within the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, in the federal constituency of Saint John-Lancaster, there is a harbour. Within the Saint John harbour at the present time there is an anomaly called Rodney terminal. It is an anomaly because there is no other terminal owned and operated by the National Harbours Board which has been financed in such a peculiar manner. Though the wharf is owned and operated by the National Harbours Board, the Premier of New Brunswick agreed to guarantee the funding necessary. Presently, the province of New Brunswick has invested $20 million of provincial money, plus $5 million which the province borrowed from DREE in the form of a repayable loan. The National Harbours Board has invested $12 million which it received from Treasury Board in the form of repayable loan funds. In effect, we have the province coughing up $25 million and the owner and the operator, the National Harbours Board, contributing only $12 million into the project which has so far cost a total of $37 million.
Mr. Chairman, my question to the Minister of Transport is: Why should the province of New Brunswick have the only terminal in Canada owned and operated by a federal board but which is two-thirds funded by the people of the province?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, in response to this first question I must say that we have co-operated quite closely with the government of New Brunswick so that they could keep going; but they needed more help than we were able to give through the National Harbours Board. Now I can tell the hon. member, without citing any figure at the moment, that it is our intention to help more
May 13, 1975

if it is necessary. From what the hon. member is saying, it seems as though there is a necessity for there to be better co-operation from the federal authorities, and this is something we will do with pleasure.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, some time ago the minister told the House that the transportation policy now under study would embrace everything that moves and that it would be announced some time during the spring or summer. The minister further stated that the policy would cover not only regional air carriers but airports and highways. We have been waiting for the unfolding of this vitally needed transportation policy. I notice from reading the estimates that considerable funds are devoted to the function of strengthening the policy and planning programs of the department; I see a reference in the blue book, under these headings, to a sum of almost $19 million.
I rise to take part in the debate today following a brief reference by the minister last night to a change of direction with respect to air policy. His comments are to be found at page 5712 of Hansard. The change results from the fact that the regional carriers are now fully involved with the larger jets; the old policy was never designed to embrace this concept. To bring the matter into focus, may I remind hon. members that when the regional air policy was announced in 1966, the categories were reasonably flexible. The minister is aware of them:
(a)	Where appropriate, limited competition on mainline route segments of Air Canada or CPA may be permitted to regional carriers if this is consistent with their local route development.
(b)	In a few cases, secondary routes presently operated by Air Canada and CPA may become eligible for transfer to regional carriers.
(c)	A larger role will be allotted to regional carriers in connection with the development of domestic and international charger services, inclusive tours and new types of services.
It seems to me that those categories are still broad enough to embrace the advent of the jet plane. This view is supported by outstanding leaders in the field of regional air carrier service. Among them is the Hon. Lionel Chevri-er who is now president of QuebecAir. He criticized the application of the policy and accused Air Canada of an inexcusable lack of civic spirit in intervening before a foreign agency to limit the growth of Canadian regional air lines. I say this because before I reach the end of my remarks I want to get an opinion from the minister as to whether Air Canada is now moving back into some of the regional air categories it abandoned immediately before the announcement of the 1966 policy and thereafter.
Incidentally, that statement by Mr. Chevrier was reported in the Globe and Mail of February 13 of this year. More recently, on April 23, another leader in the regional aviation field, Mr. Arthur Mauro, of TransAir made very much the same point when he told the company's annual meeting that regional airlines were supposed to be granted additional passenger routes under the federal regional air policy announced in 1966, but that this had not happened. He suggested that the proper allocation of domestic routes would reduce the magnitude of the fare increases being requested by main line and regional carriers. Both types of carriers were losing money on short haul routes. Canada's route system should therefore be redesigned so that is would be more in keeping with the equipment and organizational structures of various carriers.
Business of Supply
This opinion seems to be reinforced by what the minister stated last night. We were given a preliminary idea of the upgraded policy by the minister's statement on November 23, 1973, which dealt with the international aspects of air policy. This was to be followed by an expansion of the regional concept affecting also the primary or third level carriers, as they are sometimes called.
I agree with the hon. member for Bruce-Grey who suggested that, if we are going to make these two essential parts of the air policy about to be enunciated serve the air transportation needs of Canada, we will have to use the hub and spoke principle. I think that is why the minister indicated that he is putting the emphasis on primary and third level carriers.
I bring the problem right into focus now in a specific area of Canada to which I have directed the minister's attention before. I refer to western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, that area of Manitoba outside the city of Winnipeg which is in the southern part of the province. The minister has announced that there will be an experimental commuter service operating quite soon in co-operation with the province of Manitoba. I lay emphasis on the word "experimental" because this is to be a two-year experiment. It replaces a similar service that was being provided up to a year ago by Midwest, a subsidiary of TransAir. The reason Midwest asked for suspension of service a year ago was that it had to be subsidized. It was not economically viable. I understand that the proposed service is also going to be subsidized, and it will bring into air service communities like Brandon, Yorkton, Saskatoon, Dauphin, and so on. The point I want to make is that unless the hub and spoke principle is adopted, that service will not be any more useful than was the suspended Midwest service.
What is needed in this part of Canada is a jet service that will provide rapid access to the eastern market from these particular parts of southeastern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba. I am sure the minister realizes this, because in an interjection last night he said: "They can make money by flying from Brandon to Toronto but not by flying from Brandon to Winnipeg". That is just the point I want to make. The hub and spoke principle, as enunciated by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, demonstrates that you have to feed into these regional areas. In this particular part of Canada there would be a population of about 250,000 which would be a potential market for air services. Air service is urgently needed because the city of Brandon, for example, is the home of the provincial exhibition of Manitoba and of the Royal Manitoba Winter Fair, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract the interest of the eastern part of Canada, agronomists, and so on, in these fairs-which were, and still are outstanding shows on the continent-unless there is jet access.
The specific question I should like to ask the minister- perhaps he will also enlarge on some of the points he made in his preliminary statement last night-is this: Is it within the concept of the revised regional, air policy that is about to be enunciated that the commuter service necessary for gathering passengers from surrounding rural areas will be reinforced by a jet service that would operate out of Brandon airport? Air Canada flies over Brandon

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
about eight times a day in both an easterly and westerly direction. TransAir, the designated regional carrier, offered a jet service but this was turned down by an ATC decision. I trust the minister is taking a hard look at that decision to see whether the refusal is within his contemplated regional air policy and to see whether it is economically feasible. This was a service to be operated without a subsidy of any kind based on the availability of the new Fokker 28 jet aircraft.
I know that Air Canada has been asked by the province of Saskatchewan to review jet service to this area, and perhaps the minister can give us an insight into any decisions made in this regard. I am also aware that Air Canada is offering a jet service into Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, which is a community very similar in size to Brandon, though I doubt it will have a population base of some 250,000 upon which to draw.
In summary, this is a very urgently needed service. We encourage the minister to proceed expeditiously with his review. I feel the regional air policy can still fit pretty well within the original categories if sufficient flexibility is given to make use of the wide potential of the jet planes that are now available to all regional carriers.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the policy of 1966 of switching air routes from Air Canada to the regional carriers, the hon. member made reference, not to Mr. Chevrier but to the other gentleman whose name I forget.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You mean Mr. Mauro of TransAir.


Jean Marchand: I can give the hon. member the list if he wants it, and he can ask Mr. Chevrier about it. Mr. Chevrier is with QuebecAir, one of the airlines that profits the most from routes which used to belong to Air Canada, one of which is Quebec-Bagotville-Seven Islands. I might point out that TransAir got the Thunder Bay to Toronto route, for example, in competition with Air Canada. So I think that kind of statement leads nowhere because there is no truth to it. If I am told it is insufficient, then we will discuss it further.
Be that as it may, we are now compelled by circumstances-this is something we will probably have to discuss shortly-to create a third level carrier. This is the experiment at Brandon, Yorkton, Dauphin and Saskatoon with the S-27, I think it is, manufactured by the government of Manitoba. The experiment has two purposes. First, it will give service to the area; second, it will be a good opportunity to test the aircraft to see whether it is suitable for this kind of service.
As far as jets are concerned, this is a matter for the ATC, as the hon. member mentioned. The ATC is a committee of the CTC, and it is the ATC that decides whether there is to be a service between two cities. Although there may be a change in the future, all I can say at the moment is that I am ready to discuss the matter with the CTC. But I am not sure that we are in agreement that it is a good thing to have new jets covering different sectors of the country so that one day we will be so overloaded by aircraft or by equipment that-


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has now expired.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I was able to ask a few questions of the minister yesterday, and I listened carefully to most of the questions of hon. members yesterday and today, and to the minister's replies. Let me say at the outset that what I am about to say has nothing to do with my personal regard for the minister. I have a high personal regard for him and I hope that nothing I say from here on will be taken by him personally. I am sure he will not do that.
Earlier, in reply to the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville regarding Crowsnest pass freight rates, the minister said if there was going to be any decision, he would make it. Since the hon. member became Minister of Transport he has repeatedly made speeches in this House and has answered literally thousands of questions during the oral question period on various aspects of the whole transportation system in Canada and all modes. I should have thought by now he would have got the message that there needs to be some fundamental change.
He has repeatedly said the government will be coming up with a new policy. His predecessor, and the minister before him said the same thing. This sort of thing has gone on for some time in this parliament, and in the previous two parliaments: we have had a continuous litany of this sort of answer. I, for one, and I suspect most other members of this Chamber and the majority of the public in Canada, have run out of patience. We have heard great speeches, funny speeches, we have heard crying and whining by this Minister of Transport, and we have been asked to wait for this and to wait for that. I, for one, do not think we can wait any longer. We are tired of waiting. Our patience has been exhausted. It seems to me that three successive parliaments and the public generally have been more than patient, kind and understanding with the minister.
When this minister talks about making the decisions, whether they are in respect of Crowsnest pass rates or anything else, and says that he will be the one to do so, I should point out that we have seen nothing but a continual display of weakness and indecision. We have had no decisions from this Minister of Transport. When it comes to announcements or statements in respect of Crowsnest pass rates, who makes them? It is not the Minister of Transport; it is the Minister of Justice. When it comes to transportation studies in respect of grain movement in western Canada-and I would think that would be under the Department of Transport-who makes the announcement? I suggest the announcement is made by the Grains Council under the Minister of Justice.
When statements are made about branch line abandonments which are killing hundreds of communities in western Canada, who makes those statements? They are not made by the Minister of Transport; they usually come from the Minister of Justice.


An hon. Member:: Because he believes in capital punishment.
May 13, 1975


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When there are speeches and statements to be made about rail line relocations, who makes them? They are made by the minister in charge of housing, or the Minister of Regional, Economic Expansion-but not by the Minister of Transport. When it comes to urban transit- and I should think that would have something to do with transportation-who makes the statements? Who made a speech in Toronto yesterday in this regard? It was made by the minister in charge of housing, not by the Minister of Transport. Who supported the railways in opposition to a CTC ruling on freight rates? Where was the Minister of Transport at that time? The Minister of Justice supported the case of the railways, not the Minister of Transport.
The railway company presidents, including the president of the one the people of Canada are supposed to own, have no compunction about making arbitrary decisions in respect of freight rates, totally ignoring the Minister of Transport. If one looks at the reply which appears at page 5640 of Hansard for last Friday, he will get an indication of how the railway companies ignore this Minister of Transport. The minister was asked a question by the hon. member for Mackenzie, to which he replied:
-I can say there is no law that says the railways must open their books. I tell you it is not being done. I asked for information last week and received a very nice answer saying that this is not going to be revealed to anybody, including the Minister of Transport. Someday I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss that here in the House.
I can remember one, two or three days of special debate going back to early 1969 when the same sort of thing was being discussed and the minister said something different. The presidents of these railroads can totally ignore the Minister of Transport; they act on the basis of being a law unto themselves. The president of the Canadian Pacific can rewrite history in respect of the Crowsnest pass rates or anything else. I am sure the Minister of Transport has had a few bitter experiences with that gentleman and that company.
The minister was complaining yesterday about there being so many Crown corporations that he does not know who they report to or how they report, whether through the department or through the minister to parliament. How many years has the hon. gentleman been the minister? He and his predecessors have had 12 years to bring in a new transportation policy. Where is this new policy? Where is this restructuring of transportation? Where is this fundamental change to our transportation policy and our transportation system in this country? This minister and his predecessors have sat idly by while our two railway systems have coldly and calculatedly, at the expense of the economy and the people of this country, allowed our railroads to deteriorate to a state where they are a national disgrace.
These companies have siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars for investment in shopping centres, high-rise office buildings, oil companies, pipeline companies and mining and processing plants while our railroads have been crying for help. As a result, we have totally inadequate and completely unfair freight and passenger services. We have a transportation system that discriminates against people of this country because of where they happen to live.
The minister has said that competition does not work in respect of transportation. Perhaps he limited that to rail-
Business of Supply
way transportation. I do not wish to misquote him or put words in his mouth. He said that two or three years ago. I am not suggesting things he does not already know; I am just reminding him of them. Where is the policy that will eliminate this discrimination resulting from a nineteenth century concept of transportation in Canada? Transportation services in Canada have deteriorated to the point where they are as bad as any in the world. No industrialized nation in the world still operates transportation on the concept of competition and profitability. Where is this fundamental change in transportation policy?
The complaints of members from all parties, and from members of the public in all parts of Canada surely should be sufficient to indicate to the minister that any policy he brings in will have to be fundamentally different. Such a policy must be so different that it will require courage, a massive effort and a great deal of leadership. Such a policy cannot be implemented by a Minister of Transport who allows himself to be undermined continually by his colleagues in the cabinet. It cannot be implemented by a minister who allows himself to be treated like dirt by the heads of the transportation companies in the country.
I hope when the minister uses the final 15 minutes tonight, and I intend to use my entire 15 minutes now, he will tell this parliament that he is either going to bring in that fundamentally changed transportation policy and stop all this fractionating that is going on in our transportation system, or he is going to quit. If he is not prepared to stand on his own hind legs and stop allowing himself to be pushed around and treated like some clown in the House of Commons-and we do not need any more funny speeches or jokes that get laughs from members of the press gallery-then we are not going to see this new transportation policy.
Mr. Chairman, the requirements of transportation and everything else in the economy depend on the integration of transportation. We keep messing around with concepts that were thrown out long ago by most countries. Transportation must be treated as a public utility, an essential public service. Yet the government seems still to think it can have a little bit of free enterprise here, a little bit of public enterprise there, a little bit of regulation here, a little bit of regulation there, a little bit of this and that, and a little bit of a Minister of Transport. This business will not work. You cannot have it both ways.
We might look at the countries of Europe, Japan and Australia. We must treat transportation as a public utility, owned and operated by the public and controlled by the public through the Minister of Transport, the government and parliament, with a utility rating board or whatever overseeing body might be set up. Instead of that, we keep enlarging the jungle and compounding all the inequities, discrimination and inadequacies of a transportation system. Nineteenth century concepts have got us into a mess here. Our railroad system across the country has failed year after year to meet the growth in the transportation needs of Canada. There is nothing new about there being a shortage of boxcars. I remember in 1946 and 1947 that there were not enough stock cars or refrigerator cars. That was forgiven because of the wartime period. They have never caught up. There has always been a shortage of

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
locomotives. I remember in the early 1950s when locomotives were leased from the United States.
The minister must, once and for all, say that the government will bring in a national transportation policy that will get rid of the concept of competition which cannot function in a public utility. It would be just as logical to have two competing highways running side by side, or two competing electrical or telephone companies. We did that years ago. It would be just as sensible to have two competing sewer and water systems running under our streets. This is nonsense. There have been duplications, inefficiencies, backhauls and failure to keep the system up to date. Some people in the government propose that perhaps we should take over the roadbeds of the railroads. They would love that. They have allowed them to deteriorate to a point where it will take something like $1 billion to put the roadbeds back into the standard they should be in. They have never kept them up. Where was the Minister of Transport-this one or his predecessor? Who was telling the railways that they had two choices, either compulsory or "you must"?
The same situation applies in respect of the airlines. The minister says that Air Canada is asked to do things for the country as a whole. I agree with his remarks about Air Canada yesterday. They lost $1 million on their Montreal to Moscow route last year. We asked Air Canada to do something we would not ask private enterprise to do. That has been the problem. The concept has been to siphon off the lucrative routes and pad up some regional carriers or CP Air to the detriment of our own airline. I am amazed that Air Canada has done as well as it has. Half a dozen of the largest privately owned airlines in the United States are presently on their hands and knees pleading with their federal authority for several hundred million dollars to bail them out. As I have said, I am amazed that Air Canada has done as well as it has. I submit it has done that despite the transportation policy of this government and despite some of the senior management. Had it not been for the quality and character of most of the employees, it would not have done as well as it has.
The way we handcuff our own airlines and railways is criminal. It is beyond belief. I thought that by now the minister, even if it means having a knock-down, dragged-out fight with some of his nineteenth century colleagues, would have said, "This will be the new policy, or I quit. This is what I want to bring to parliament. This is what we need to do about transportation." We have all this nonsense about flying DC-8 jets over 100-mile flights. It is ridiculous, wasteful and inefficient. One can get from downtown Ottawa to downtown Toronto more quickly on the turbo than on Air Canada. Try it. This is a waste. The CNR removed one passenger train when it got the turbo going between Montreal and Toronto, and something in the order of 10,000 or 15,000 automobiles a day go back and forth between Montreal and Toronto with one person in each car. Really, what is transportation policy? Why should people leave their automobiles behind? The congestion in our cities requires a massive effort on the part of the provincial and municipal authorities as part of our national transportation policy. We need an urban transportation system. It will take ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs.

The railroads refused to work together for the benefit of the various regions and areas of Canada. Why? They are supposed to be competing. The CNR and CPR have tracks side by side, but the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and some of his allies say that we must pick up branch lines way out on the prairies where farmers may have to drive an additional 15 or 20 miles to haul their grain. We have nonsense like that on the 45-miles between Regina and Moose Jaw. There are CNR tracks right beside the CPR tracks. You could remove those 45 miles of CNR track and nobody would be hurt. Then you would have a much more efficient and sensible operation between those two cities. But oh, no; they must compete.


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


Jean Marchand: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member has not been very nice. He did not put any questions to me; rather, he made a series of attacks and I do not have an opportunity to answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I made it very clear to the minister that he would have 15 minutes tonight, and I hope he will do whatever he likes about what I said. There is no use asking questions any more. This has been going on for two years, and we get nowhere.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth while bringing to the attention of members that the Premier of Saskatchewan called an election today, and we are witnessing the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre conducting his campaign. It is interesting to note that he has the same backward-looking approach he has had for 20 years.


Mr. Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be a little nicer to the Minister of Transport. The port of Churchill is totally dependent on the CNR for the delivery of grain and other imported and exported materials to this great inland seaport. I have mentioned on other occasions in the House that this port is not used to its capacity, for the following reasons. First, there is lack of concern and effort by this government. This is reflected in the estimates we are discussing today. I feel that the money that is being spent on capital projects and also on maintenance projects represents nothing more than housekeeping. I do not feel this is good in relation to the expansion of the inland port of Churchill.
Most of the railway that runs from The Pas to Churchill has been upgraded over the last few years to the point where it is now capable of handling the hopper cars that have been built for the transportation of grain. However, the portion of the railroad from Gillam to Churchill has not been upgraded to this point. There have been several serious rail problems which have caused several wrecks. This has cost the CNR a large sum of money. It has also hampered the delivery of goods to the port of Churchill. Another problem between Gillam and Churchill which also affects the delivery of goods to Churchill is that there is no passing track from Gillam to Churchill, a distance of some 200 miles.
May 13, 1975

If the port of Churchill is to be brought up to its full capacity, we have to provide some money to upgrade the railway facilities and the facilities of the port itself. I would like to commend the members of the harbours board who deal with Churchill because the fellows I have met in Churchill who are working there are making a good, honest effort to upgrade this port facility, but we must have the help of the government in order to develop this port to its full capacity. I am not thinking now about submarines, and so on. I want the port brought up to the capacity of which it is capable.
The port at the present time is under the authority of the eastern region of Canada, which gives Montreal complete control over this very vital port. Why is this port not under the control of the western region where the goods shipped through that port originate? Grain comes from the central prairie region of Canada, sulphur is now coming from western Canada and is being shipped out through Churchill. Why is it controlled by the eastern region? Why can the control of that port not be in the hands of the western region where the people are closer to the situation?
Another problem with regard to the delivery of grain is the fact that there is no co-ordination whatsoever between the wheat board, the Department of Transport, and the harbours board. There does not seem to be co-operation in getting the grain to that facility and on to ships. I have stated before in the House that today when there are boats which can carry 1,300,000 bushels out of Churchill we must have better facilities and more storage capacity. Some of our trackage is completely plugged with the traditional type of boxcars, and that is why we have to upgrade our facility and the trackage in order to handle hopper cars, thus bringing the port of Churchill up to its full capacity with the facilities now there.
I was interested today to see the interest the harbours board is now taking in the diversion of the Churchill River. Hopefully not, but that will probably have some effect on the town of Churchill with regard to its water intake, and so on. I was pleased that the harbours board has the National Research Council carrying out a study.
I would also like to mention the air transport committee. In the area I represent we, fortunately or unfortunately, do not have Air Canada, but we have carriers like TransAir, Lambair, Calmair, Cross Lake Air Service, St. Andrews Air, Ilford-Riverton Airways and Parsons Airways. These carriers are not being subsidized to the tune of some $9 million. No one is picking up the tab for them. They must either provide a service and make it pay, or they are just out of business. When we consider the problems they have in making application for additional runs and reclassifying runs they already have, many of the air carriers, because of the time element and the slow rate at which ATC makes a decision, have to wait anywhere from 9 months to 18 months for a decision.
I say those air carriers are the backbone of transportation in the north at this time. At one time the railway was the backbone, but it has become such a dilapidated transportation system, and so undependable, that air transport is the key to transportation around the Churchill constituency, yet we are forcing these air carriers to violate the
Business of Supply
law almost every day because there has not been a decision handed down by the ATC.
The ATC should be considering the entire air carrier system. Perhaps we should be dealing with regions of Canada instead of trying to make rules applicable right across the country. There are air transportation problems which could be solved within each individual area. We also find that air carriers in many cases are not being considered for other regional contracts which come up, and I think they should be taken into consideration when these contracts are being let.
Freight rates in general are so out of line for people living in communities served only by the railway that it is at this point forcing not only small industry out of business in much of the Churchill constituency, but also some of the larger companies. I can cite International Nickel as an example. The Department of Transport appears to take the view that it can put a tariff on a particular item because the only way that item can be moved is by rail, but I can assure the minister that the companies are aware of this, and they feel they are being penalized. They are considering other means of transportation to move articles into their mine sites, and so on.
The small businesses along the railway to Churchill, and those along the railway to Lynn Lake are suffering an increase of 20 per cent. This was announced just last week in the area. It makes it impractical for small businesses to ship articles. That is not so for the large operator who can receive containerized goods, but the small operator is almost completely out of business because he does not have that alternative to move his goods. Many people in the smaller communities have begun chartering aircraft to move goods even though trains run right past their doorsteps because they can no longer afford to pay the rates set by the railway.
I would like to mention that the NTCL has moved into Churchill on a contract for the next 15 years to move goods up the coast of Hudson Bay. I welcome this type of development because this will help the port of Churchill. I hope this will be a jumping off spot for the development of the Arctic gas pipeline, which I hope will come down the west side of Hudson Bay. I can think of no better place than the port of Churchill as a distribution centre for that pipeline. The railway is there, ships have access, and so on. I think it would be a good move to get the facilities in shape now.
I see that there is also development on the airstrips at Eskimo Point, Whale Cove and Rankin Inlet. This is being done under the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It will be very beneficial if the pipeline does come down the west side of Hudson Bay, where I think it should, because it is the only practical route.
I would like to ask the minister if he can give me any answer on the future development of the port of Churchill. Is the government just sitting back? Is the government completely controlled by the ports in the east? Why is Churchill not developed to its full potential of, say, 40 million bushels of grain per annum, as opposed to what the minister announced last year as another record year of 22 million bushels? I cannot accept that, when the facilities are already in place at Churchill and there are people

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
there who operate the port. I cannot understand why the port cannot operate to its full capacity.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have not got much time. I do not see why the hon. member draws a conclusion exactly opposite to that which he should draw. The port of Churchill had been very much neglected in the past and I have been negotiating with the government of Manitoba to change that. Before we met a year ago there was $12 million that we were supposed to spend in about six years. We decided to reduce the period to three years in order to expedite the project. Also, as the hon. member knows, we cannot use the port the year round and so we are trying to see how we can extend this period.
The hon. member asks why Churchill is serviced by ships or companies from Montreal. This year I decided that the company which is going to serve the North and the Keewatin area will be the NTCL. That is not a company from Montreal, and there have been complaints about that. It must be recognized that we are making an effort to pay $3.3 million for engineering purposes to see how we can develop the port of Churchill. This is at the same time that we are developing the port of Prince Rupert.
The emphasis could have been put on the port of Prince Rupert, but the government decided to do something for Churchill, and is doing it. The hon. member may say it is not doing enough. Mr. Chairman, we are dredging in the port of Churchill in order to allow ships to use the harbour more easily than in the past. We are not regressing, we are progressing. Maybe it is not fast enough and maybe next year we can go faster, but we have been worried about Churchill, as we have been worried also about Prince Rupert.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre forgot all this in his speech, because there was Prince Rupert, there was Churchill, and there was all the development we have done in the northern part of British Columbia. He did not mention the Clinton-Ashcroft bypass. This is of no interest to him. He did not talk about the strengthening of the highways so that trucking in the western provinces can move better than in the past. He did not talk about what we have done in the maritimes because he has no interest in that. But we have done something, Mr. Chairman, and there is something in the budget for Churchill. It is better than it used to be.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the debate because we are dealing with a very important problem in this country.
I am always astonished to realize how much Canada and ancient Greece are alike. In both countries the transportation problem was the one to solve to achieve national unity, economic prosperity at home and in our relations with our neighbours.
Mr. Chairman, because Canada has an area of four million square miles and 22 million people, as Greece is faced with a series of small communities which must be interconnected.

In my maiden speech, that was the problem to which I wanted to draw the attention of the House because it directly concerns people in my riding. Indeed, my constituents owe their very existence to the transportation system.
Before Confederation, of course, people used waterways, rivers and lakes to travel. Things have changed since and North Bay, as all the other towns in my riding, would not exist if the railway from this town towards the western coast had not been built.

Recently I had occasion to read a document called "Canada Courier", Volume 12, Number 9, which deals with the Canadian transportation industry. When Canada faces up to its transportation dilemma it will find solutions that will not only enhance communications between Canadians but which will also contribute to its future as a technological and industrial nation.
It is evident that since we developed our industrial power we have concentrated on transportation and a highly sophisticated transportation technology. I am reminded of the MLW controversy last year when we were attempting to export diesel engines to Cuba. We must realize that Canada is one of the main suppliers of diesel engines, and that is because of a highly developed technology in diesel construction. It was a surprise to me to find that Canada was one of the first developers of an international commercial jet airliner. Unfortunately the development was abandoned and Canada lost its technological advantage. That was followed by the abandonment of the CF-105, from which we still suffer.
We can look with pride on the government's involvement in the development of aircraft and air express technology. The "Canada Courier" referred to the DASH 7 and described it in glowing terms. When we see the DASH 7 coming out of the hangar we can take pride in it. As it was developed by de Havilland there was reason for the Canadian government to become directly involved in that company.
The situation in regard to the short takeoff and landing plane has been indicated by the hon. member for Bruce, and I believe the future of Canada resides in that particular domain. In the area I come from, short takeoff and landing planes have been serving the North Bay airport for some time and we expect the service to continue.
I should like to quote one paragraph from the front page of the "Canada Courier" relating to the aerospace industry as I think it describes succinctly what has taken place in that industry. The article reads:
Canada's aerospace industry manufactures a broad range of products, 75 per cent of which is exported to world markets.
In a country which is so very interested in export markets it is interesting to see that 75 per cent of the production of this industry goes to international markets.
The article continues:
Highly skilled technical and scientific personnel ensure the most advanced technology and production methods as well as the most meticulous quality control procedures. The results have been marked.
May 13, 1975

Production value in 1974 was approximately $700,000,000 of which almost $500,000,000 was exported.
We are talking about half a billion dollars' worth of exports.
The Canadian aerospace industry has produced first-class satellites like Anik, a communications satellite taking advantage of the most advanced space technology. I suggest that Canada can be considered as being among the world leaders in communications and transport technology.

If I may now deal with a question which is parochial in nature, so to speak, I would like to direct some questions to the minister whom I congratulate for his initiatives relating to the North Bay airport. Of course, it is not the most popular air terminal in the world. It is in fact a small air terminal which bears already the name of one of my predecessors in the House, Jack Garland. It had not formerly a large custom, but of late years it has been served by three air lines, including Air Canada which calls at the air terminal three times a day, Norantair, an air service of the province of Ontario for the North-East which calls four times a day, and another airline called Voyageur Bradley Air Services which calls regularly too.
So, the air terminal is serving about 400 people a day, and we feel now that the facilities leave much to be desired. There is no refreshments bar. The essentials are there, but it is not possible to have meals or refreshments there. Unfortunately too, the population of the area cannot be served by charter lines, because overseas-borne travelers must go through Toronto for customs clearance.
So, Mr. Chairman, Air Canada has in that building facilities that are, to say the least, shabby. I know that it is not directly due to the fact that this situation was brought to the minister's attention previously. All the representations I made to the minister until now have been successful. Of course, in that field, things change every six or seven months. I wanted to take this opportunity to call the minister's attention on the situation at that airport.
Needless to say that the facilities are inadequate, although the runway itself is one of the best in all northeastern Ontario, because it is where all the flights which cannot be directed towards Toronto, for one reason or another, because of a strike or bad weather, are sent.
So, we must often welcome great numbers of passengers of Air Canada or other international airlines which are forced to stop there. I would therefore ask the minister to give me some information or to indicate what he intends to do regarding that air terminal and its facilities.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt, as I explained at the beginning of my remarks, that my region owes its very existence to the national transportation system. As I said, it is there that the transcontinental line originated from. [English]
Without doubt, the future of Nipissing, North Bay and Sturgeon Falls depends on transportation. Three railroads serve the area, the ONR, CPR and CNR.
Now that we are involved with the aerospace industry I hope the minister will remember the extent to which North Bay depends on the Department of Transport. The
Business of Supply
future development of the area is at stake. I therefore hope the minister will make sure that the area's facilities are adequate for present services and also for any contemplated growth in the future.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, first let me make a few comments about the STOL experiment. If the experimental service between Montreal and Ottawa proves to be a success, and if it is proven that the DASH 7 is really an aircraft with STOL performance, not only will some problems in Canada be solved but there will be industrial benefits as well.
About 15 days ago-this does not happen often-a French delegation came here because they were interested in the DASH 7. The head of the delegation was Mr. Ziegler, the man who conceived the Concord, that big supersonic aircraft. Incidentally I do not want to see it here. At any rate he is considered as the father of the Concord. The delegation he headed came here because it was interested in the DASH 7 and in the STOL system. Mr. Ziegler is the head of a company which is concerned about air travel between Paris and the Alps. He found that we have the kind of aircraft they need for their service in France. The delegation went to Toronto, to the de Havilland company, because they wanted to see the DASH 7.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I should like to answer the hon. member's second question after supper.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member for Nipissing has expired. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The committee will again consider vote No. 1 of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, I note the minister is present and his officials are just arriving. I want to say, with no offence to the minister, because I am allowed 15 minutes, if I use the total 15 minutes I do not think that he has no answer to the problems I have chosen to bring before him this evening. However, I hope that he and his officials will consider them.
I was greatly alarmed last Friday when, during the question period, the minister stated he had received a letter from a railway company which said quite clearly that their books were their own, they were not going to make them available to anyone, and there was no law in this land that could force them to do so. That remark concerned me greatly. I understand the predicament the minister is in, Mr. Chairman.
Last evening I read the annual report of Air Canada. Having read a number of annual reports of a number of airlines in recent years, I was concerned about their annual report. I want to put my concerns on record, in essence broadcasting to the people of Air Canada the

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
questions I would like them to answer when they appear before the committee to defend that annual report.
For many months we have heard from the president of Air Canada that it is short-haul traffic that causes them trouble, and long-haul traffic that makes money. He said it is the short-haul traffic they have to look after that really costs them money. I saw no evidence of that in their annual report. They referred to the Rapido air service, but gave no special accounting. Does the Rapido air service make money for Air Canada? That is my first question. The reason I bring that to the attention of the minister and Air Canada is that this is a service only between Montreal and Toronto. They may have, and in fact should have, a separate accounting of that system.
Venturex Limited, a subsidiary of Air Canada, handles their charter service under two groups, CanPlan, and some other one. There is no special accounting and no amount estimated in the Air Canada annual report as to the profit or loss of Venturex. There is hardly any mention as to whether they lost money in their courtship with Wardair or whether they made an actual contribution toward War-dair's credibility to carry on, which I think they did, at a cost to Air Canada and the Air Canada structure generally.
The annual report says with regard to the STOL air operation that there is an "encouraging public response". The president of Air Canada complains about short-hauls costing them money, long-hauls making them money, the short-haul having to be subsidized by the long-haul, yet there is no report as to whether STOL air operations can become a money maker for Air Canada, only that there is an encouraging public response.
If I would like to make an examination of Air Canada's annual report as a shareholder of that company, and I must speak for several thousand shareholders in the constituency of Crowfoot, I would like to know whether the STOL air operation has the potential of being a money maker. If it has, is there any substance to the argument that short-hauls are costly for Air Canada?
I wonder about Air Jamaica and the operations there. Is that operation costing Air Canada money purely and simply because of a commitment to the foreign affairs policy of the government?
What about Canadair and the whole involvement of Air Canada in aircraft construction? Is that operation costing Air Canada money today? Will it eventually prove to be the noose around the neck of Air Canada, forcing it to accept aircraft manufactured by the Canadian aircraft manufacturing industry?
Most airline companies suggest, without a word of a doubt, how much of their income is derived from charter service. Air Canada's annual report does not suggest that at all. It just leads us to believe it is a functional operation, and a very worthwhile one.
Having made those remarks about our air policy, I now wish to deal briefly with our railroad policy. At page 21 of committee report No. 20 of the Standing Committee on Transport Communications, I asked Mr. Sinclair, the president of CP, the following question:
Do you believe that a transportation policy should be geared to region-
al interests, or for our international interests, or for our ability to compete internationally?
We are attempting to evolve a new transportation policy. I asked a very simple question, should it be geared to regional interests or international interests? I wonder what the minister's opinion is in that regard. Mr. Sinclair replied without any equivocation. His answer can be found at page 21 of the committee report. He said:
Quite frankly, Mr. Horner, I do not think transportation should be used as an instrument of regional equalization. I think there are more effective ways of bringing that about.
He left no doubt that transportation policies should be geared to our ability to compete internationally.
This brings me to the next subject with which I want to deal. I once debated in Regina the question of whether the Canadian Pacific Railway should be nationalized or not. I took the side that it should not be nationalized. I am not ashamed of that. I do not believe it should be nationalized. I am not ashamed of the present management of CP. I think they are good. Mr. Burbidge, Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Mar-tinelli are knowledgeable, capable men. However, from my vantage point I believe they are overlooking certain things and this evening I wish to draw a number of these omissions to the minister's attention.
As hon. members may be aware, there is a great publicity campaign currently going on across the prairies. The CP is spending thousands of dollars to convince the lowly farmers, or people they think of as lowly farmers, that there is a better way-and I know CP is not an easy aminal for the minister to get along with. In that same committee the question of grain shipments arose. The CP said "the bottleneck was on the prairies". That is a direct quotation. The minister in charge of western transportation-no offence to the present minister; I am aware of the fights that go on within the cabinet-came down hard and heavy on the side of the CPR. He turned out to be the spokesman for the CPR in Saskatchewan.
A few minutes ago I spoke about taking part in that debate in Regina. Well, I do not think the CP should be nationalized but I do believe it should perform a national service within the province of Saskatchewan. That is where the Minister of Justice and I disagree. On April 10, about a year ago, the Minister of Transport and I, at a transportation conference he called, sat and watched various spokesmen enlarge upon the ills of transportation.
The CP laid out a chart of a car cycle of grain car movements in western Canada. They said the total car cycle was 18 days. I have the chart before me, now. A car spent 1.7 days in the City of Calgary, 4.4 days moving from Calgary to Vancouver, and 4.4 days in Vancouver trying to get unloaded. So of the 18 days, it spent over half the time being made up into a big choo-choo train in Calgary, and going on being a big choo-choo train through the mountains, and trying to get that choo-choo train unloaded in Vancouver. So when the President of CPR tells the transportation committee that the bottleneck is really on the prairies, his own charts do not substantiate that statement.
He goes on to say, as we read at page 22 of the committee report that the whole cause is the five-day work week on
May 13, 1975

the elevators on the prairies. Mr. Chairman, the whole cause is not the five-day work week because, according to this same chart, the time the car spent on the prairies in spite of a five-day work week is 2.9 days; the car spent 2.9 days out of the 18 being loaded. So it is readily conceivable that the biggest bottleneck is Vancouver.
Has the Department of Transport investigated this bottleneck? Is it because of the inefficiency of the elevators? Should they work on what I ordinarily refer to as the spout and auger principle? Or is the bulk loading system preferable? Do these delays arise because loading facilities at Vancouver are based on a five-day week? These are questions which I ask the department to examine. If it has not done so already, I think it should. In any case it is important that the transportation committee of the House of Commons should consider these matters carefully.
I know from evidence given at the same committee hearings that between now and 1980 the CP plans to spend $30-40 million on the purchase of boxcars. Yet during the transportation conference the minister called on April 10, 1974, it was suggested that if they could cut the grain car cycle by one day the number of cars required could be decreased by 763. If they could lower the cycle by two days another 747 cars would be saved, making a total saving of 1,510. If they could cut that cycle by three days-these are CP figures I am quoting-they would save a further 754 cars.
Reducing the cycle from 18 days to 15 days is certainly not an impossible goal. With a reduction of three days, over 2,100 boxcars could be saved. This would save the Canadian government $40 million on the purchase of 2,000 boxcars. This gives some idea of what confounds me when I sit and watch an hour of slides being shown by CP on the basis of figures which cannot stand up to close, knowledgeable scrutiny. The CPR has been obsessed with the idea of breaking the Crowsnest pass rates. It has a disciple in the Minister of Justice. He, too, is obsessed with the idea of breaking the Crowsnest pass rates. I think other means could be found of providing efficient service to western Canada in the movement of grain.


B. Keith Penner: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to put a few questions to the minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) this evening. As was stated yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), the estimates keep increasing every year, but services in our areas are constantly reduced. I have nothing against progress and updating. But if a service must be discontinued, we ask that it be replaced by a more adequate system, so that the people be better served. We should expect service commensurate with increased estimates, and better still in certain areas. Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware of air transport problems faced by the constituency of Villeneuve, and I would like to put a few questions to the minister concerning Val d'Or airport, which has had no radar for the past month and a half.
My first question is this: Since we are examining estimates, can the minister advise the House whether the estimates provide for the installation of new radar or
Business of Supply
similar facilities required for the smooth operation of air services at Val d'Or airport? And if so, can the minister tell whether this will be done soon? I raise the question because a number of air passengers in northwestern Quebec fear for their safety in foggy weather.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have answered this same question three times in this House over the past week, once for the benefit of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and another time for another member in the Abitibi area. Of course the forces left the airport with their equipment. We now have inspectors on site in order to determine what type of signal equipment is needed for maximum aircraft safety. As soon as I have their report, I shall be in a position to tell when we shall take action.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My second question is this: Can the minister tell whether there were developments concerning another airport in the Northern part of my constituency of Villeneuve, the Chibougamau airport for which the people have been pleading for a number of years? It would serve an estimated population of 20,000. According to certain airlines a new airport in Chibougamau would be profitable. Can the minister tell whether there are developments on that matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, in the estimates, $2,700,000 are allocated to local or municipal airports. Of course, there is an order of priorities; we cannot build up airports everywhere. People tell me; "It seems it would be profitable. The hon. member should be able to go a little further than that with local authorities, which he probably knows quite well. I know some of them too. If he wants me to give him a hand, I can help him. He should be able to prove that the money would not be invested to allow one or two planes only to land."
There are already airports in the Lac St. Jean area; there is a very big one in the Saguenay area. That does not mean that there must not be one in Chibougamau, a city where there is industrial development. Besides, during the last elections, I went there and even visited a new barking plant of considerable importance. In any event, I think that a case must be made which will demonstrate that an airport is essential there. Then, we would be able to come to an agreement with the municipality and help them. However, I cannot tell him in such a candid way.
I remember a very simple incident which happened in my office when a full delegation told me: "We would like an airport at such a place". I answered: "What planes are going to land there?" They said: "Build up the runway and we shall see." Then, we should build up runways everywhere. All I ask you is that the case be made and, then, we will see how we can help.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, yesterday morning, I had conversations with the manager of Nor-dair, at Val d'Or, and he told me that he had submitted an application, I do not know whether it is to the minister or the Canadian Transport Commission, in order to get the privilege to go to Chibougamau to connect Val-d'Or and

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
Chibougamau; this is what makes me conclude that the company finds it profitable.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, Nordair might be interested because it is going to serve the whole area as it is already serving the Abitibi. The decision will be made by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. We shall see what their decision will be and if there are problems, we might discuss them.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell us if he is aware of representations made in order to discontinue the railway passenger service between La Reine and Senneterre?


Jean Marchand: As far as railway service between those two communities is concerned, as mentioned by the hon. member, I think it is under the jurisdiction of the CNR. I believe that the company needs the approval of the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not know whether the CNR has submitted an application to that effect, perhaps you might give me some more details as I do not locate those communities very well geographically. But, wherever they are located, the CTC must authorize the CNR to discontinue the service.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I should like to discuss for a few moments some problems in the city of Calgary, but before doing so may I join in the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot with reference to Air Canada short-hauls. It is not so long ago that Air Canada had a route between Calgary and Edmonton. They claimed it cost them so much money that finally the route was given to a small branch company. The small branch company has made so much money that it is probably the gold mine of the west. So it sure boils down to straight management in these things.
In the city of Calgary we have the only airport in which the depot is owned by the municipality. In the days before we saw the new depots built at Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton-this was when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was minister-Calgary was missed, not because the government missed it intentionally but because the depot was owned by the municipality.
Then at the time Mr. Pickersgill was passing the bill through which he was going to become head of the Canadian Transport Commission, which ensured that he would get a good pension, the department negotiated a contract with the city of Calgary for the government to purchase the equity from the city. At that time it promised that within three years we would have a new depot. This was some time around 1966 or 1967. It is now 1975.
The old depot has been extended in all directions. During the winter it is equipped with electric heaters. Calgary airport is called an international airport, yet while you are waiting for Air Canada, if you happen to sit under one of the heaters you get one of those so-called Florida tans. Some say that they even interfere with the fertility of the human race, they are so hot. There are no decent washrooms. The ones they have are so dirty that even the hogs you find in rural areas in the northern part of Alberta would hesitate to use them.

There is no air conditioning at the airport, but there let me congratulate the minister. I once raised this matter in the House during an argument, and since then someone must have read about it and something was done. So I thank the minister for finally putting in some air conditioning to neutralize this terrific heat that you get when waiting for Air Canada in order to crowd on to a 747. They even have pens there. They must have thought they were in the stockyards.
We are now to have a $40 million shiny new depot for which we have waited ten long years. I sent a copy of a telegram I received to my good friend, the minister, who always tries to co-operate if possible within his own sphere of jurisdiction so as to deal with some of the monstrosities that exist in the Department of Transport. Some people claim there is a lot of hanky-panky going on with the tendering. Take, for example, a simple thing like tile. I should like to put this telegram on the record:
We request your intervention to rectify a situation that is very unfair. We are the low tender for the supply of Gail brickplate tile pavers, approved by the architects-
By the way, they are solid Grit too. I would have thought they were solid gold, but I do know they are solid Grit. They have never been known to go to anybody but the Grits, so they should be palatable to the government.


Jean Marchand: There are a few survivors?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are a few survivors in Calgary, and that is what makes them such tremendous characters.
In any event, the title was approved and this company was the one which had its tender in on time. Then along came a company in the east, and my hon. friend laughs because it happens that the company is in her constituency. Apparently the officers of this company were great friends of another noble character in this House, who used to be the Minister of Finance and then the Minister of Transport. He was the man who could always predict the economy with such accuracy.


An hon. Member:: You mean Benson.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You guessed him; it was Benson. Apparently Mr. Benson at some time in his political career advanced a large sum of money to keep this company afloat. The company is still in some trouble and it wants to pull itself out at the expense of the Calgary company.
I have a telegram from Darlington Haskins and Company Limited of Vancouver, which is a branch of P. M. Dartnall Limited, Calgary. I might tell you that the man involved is a kind of character himself. I arrived here after seven hours on the plane-my wife had joined me on this trip-and at two o'clock in the morning he phoned me and he was in no humour to be soft-soaped in any way about this hanky-panky going on in respect of tenders for the Calgary airport.
I would ask the minister if he has an answer in respect of this matter, and I hope he does not tell me there is nothing wrong. I have done a little more research on this and I know that the tenders were closed. I think it was the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who made a speech about the method of tendering on these contracts. An
May 13, 1975

election has just been called in Saskatchewan, and they say the only difference between the NDP and the Liberals is that the Liberals are full of money. I know they need money for their election, but I do not want it all to come from the Calgary airport and other projects in Calgary.
Seriously, I would like to hear what the minister has to say. Would he now promise to cut out this hanky-panky at our airport and please get it finished so that we do not lose our fertility in the city of Calgary just trying to catch Air Canada flights?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to answer these questions is to refer to a memo I received from Mr. Windsor who is in charge of airports in Canada. This is probably a confidential document but I am fully confident of my discretion. It states:
Following tender call by the Project Office for supply of quarry tile for Calgary terminal, it was brought to my attention that the specification was more stringent than the Canadian Government Specification Board Standard 75-GP-1B.
Subsequently, officials recommended that CGSB Specification was adequate for the purpose intended and inasmuch as there was insufficient time to issue an addendum to the tender prior to the close of tenders, the project office is now requesting quotations on the basis of the revised specification.
This was in reference to a tender call for floor tile for the Calgary airport.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, my sympathy is with the minister. The fact is that what has taken place was something over which he had no control.


Jean Marchand: Well, I thank you.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If I were the minister I am sure I would not have control, as he does not have control, over this hanky-panky stuff that goes on behind the scenes. Here we have an architect laying down the specifications, and then people come along and change them and a Canadian company loses the contract. This is a Canadian company, by the way, which employs about 1,500 people between Calgary and Vancouver. I know the Minister of National Revenue will appreciate that.
Because specifications are changed I hope the department does not tear up all the tenders. I do not blame the minister for this hanky-panky that is going on. I am going to sit down, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that there is at stake some $40 million. I hope they do not tear up all the tenders and then grant these contracts on an ad hoc basis.
This is Calgary's centennial year. For 100 years we have been discriminated against in the city of Calgary, by taxation, and in the west generally by freight rates, and by having the poorest international airport in the world. Except for the character and the stamina of these people they would have gone under ground. However, we flourished as a metropolis, but we could still use the help of the minister to cut out this hanky-panky that is going on, or this little dealing under the table. We like to play poker on top of the table, but we have a feeling there is something going on under the table. I would ask the minister to take a look at the situation. Let us get this project built so that we can have some kind of equity and cleanliness.
Business of Supply


Jean Marchand: I think the only suggestion I can make at this moment is that, if I am still around when it happens, the hon. member is cordially invited to the opening of that new airport.


An hon. Member:: Let him cut the ribbon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me thank the minister for his graciousness. Even if I have to stand on Grit tile, I appreciate the invitation.


Jean Marchand: This matter of tenders was discussed this afternoon with the Leader of the Opposition and other members, including the member for South Shore. Unfortunately he is not here.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will take the message for him.


Jean Marchand: Yes, you take the message. I may be mistaken, but I think the Leader of the Opposition adopted exactly the same argument. He asked why we did not audit the books of the Harbour Commission in Hamilton in order to discover these things. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not use that argument I am sure the hon. member for South Shore did. As hon. members know, there are two commissions in Canada that operate under a special statute adopted by the House of Commons. They do not fall under the general rules, and the Hamilton Harbour Commission is one of the two. It states in that statute that the audit is to be made by the municipality and not by the federal government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about the bids?


Jean Marchand: The same thing for the bids.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am talking about the St. Lawrence bids.


Jean Marchand: Oh, well, you changed the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I understand you because, of course, you have no interest in the other one.


Mr. Turner (London East):: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the London District Railway Workers Council I should like to direct a few questions to the minister. That council stated in a letter to the minister that they have been informed by the news media that Mr. Bandeen, CN president, wants the CNR split into smaller companies as an economic shot in the arm, and the taxpayer as a shareholder would see his investment increase in value.
The Globe and Mail of April 5 also informed the council that the CN has sold the Chapman trucking firm on the west coast, wholly owned by the CNR, to a United States trucking firm. They suggest that this would be selling a part of a Canadian Crown corporation into foreign ownership. They point out that if Mr. Bandeen has this authority it would be logical to assume that he could sell off any part off the small companies into which he wants to split the CN.
It is interesting to note that on the CBC national news of Sunday, January 27, 1974, confirmed in the London Free Press of January 28 the same year, it was reported that the

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
trade minister and 33 Canadian businessmen attended a trade mission to Mexico, and that our government had agreed to a loan of $200 million for the purpose of upgrading their railways, while at the same time our own railways are being neglected and falling apart.
My question to the minister, to which I believe we are entitled to have answered, are as follows. First, were the four days of hearings held in southwestern Ontario by the Commons Standing Committee on Transportation from May 29 to June 1, 1972, mere tokenism? Second, if that is not the case, when does the minister intend to recommend the implementation of this committee report which was tabled in the House in June, 1972? Third, does the CNR president have the authority to split this Crown corporation into small subsidiary companies? Fourth, if the president does have that authority, does he have authority to sell these small subsidiary companies to private foreign-owned companies? Fifth, if the CNR is split up into small subsidiary companies what will happen to the employees and their bargaining units? Sixth, will they have a voice and be kept informed of proceedings? Seventh, did our federal government pay the $200,000,000 to Mexico?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it is quite difficult to answer these questions outright. I think I will have to get in touch with Mr. Bandeen and discuss with my hon. friend the contents of this letter and the allegations contained in it, because I think this is a very important problem. Sometimes Crown corporations believe they can do almost anything. The government is interested in certain things the Crown corporations are doing. Maybe some of the Crown corporations even if the statutes do not compel them to do so, might inform the Minister of Transport of what they intend to do so that the newspaper men are not the first to know what is going on in certain Crown corporations. This is very serious.
If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the kind of debate which has been going on is something that personally I appreciate very much. It is very useful to have the points of view of everybody in respect of the real problems. It is frustrating for anyone who has an executive job to be in the situation of discussing something with the wrong facts. Probably this is true not only in respect of executives but also in respect of other jobs when the exact facts are not before one.
There was a reference in the House today to the third report on midwestern Ontario. Of course I do not remember all the reports that are filed and tabled here. I received the information later that this report had been tabled on May 1, 1974. I was asked what we did with this third report. I did not know offhand what we did with it. It was tabled on that date. I believe it is very important to check to find out exactly what is happening.
This is similar to the situation in respect of the hon. gentleman who was here a few moments ago and who is probably now behind the curtains, my good friend from Central Nova. He spoke of the vice-president of a personnel agency who opened a business, and suggested that Air Canada paid a fee of six months salary to this agency. Well, I looked into this and I did not find anything. If he has some evidence I think he should produce it to me so

that I can honestly look into it, but if it is only a rumour I think it is wrong.
If Air Canada does not behave as it should I believe it should be attacked, just like any other company. You never saw me attempt to protect any Crown corporation under my jurisdiction just because it was a Crown corporation. However, I do not think it is right to attack them wrongly. They do commit a number of sins but I do not think I want to react to all of them. We are often much more strict in respect of the Crown corporations than is the case in respect of private organizations. Some say no, but I am sure it is yes.
This afternoon the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre made a real effort to find out everything the Minister of Transport did not do and what other ministers did in the field of transportation. He forgot to mention all that has been done through the Ministry of Transport during the past year. Many things were done, not only in British Columbia as I mentioned. Twice this year in the west, in Ontario, in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces I met with all the provincial ministers. I even met with some of the premiers in order to discuss the policy I intend to present first to the committee and then to the House. In my view this is very important if we are to have a coherent national policy.
I do not speak of a federal policy. I speak of a national transportation policy. If we want one I believe we must consult with the local people, the people in the regions, the cities and the provinces so that we will have a policy which really meets the need of the nation. We have been working hard. I am not speaking only of the trips I made and the discussions I had but also the discussions my officials and I had on a number of other problems.


Gerald William Baldwin: And the opposition too.


Jean Marchand: And the opposition too. I know I am due to meet it in any event so I prefer to do it in a good atmosphere. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre forgot about all those things. He forgot about STOL and how important it is. He forgot about all the air agreements we have entered into in order to expand the air influence of Canada. He forgot about all we did in respect of the Northern Transportation Company and what we did in respect of the government of Manitoba. This is something on which we worked very hard. I worked with Mr. Evans and we succeeded in arriving at a formula. The hon. member did not talk about the highways and what we did in that field. He did not talk about the monitoring service which followed the meeting he had with me. He stated that that produced real results. He did not talk about the cost disclosure bill which came before this House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It took three years.


Jean Marchand: It was passed this year. We had a nice agreement with the western ministers on the freight rates, and even the premier of Alberta said it was a really great breakthrough. The hon. member did not talk about the ferry service in the maritimes. He was not interested in that. Then there was the matter of protection of coastal trade and the adoption of the Darling Report. He was not interested in that. He was not interested in the
May 13, 1975

protection we gave to Canadian flag carriers. He did not talk about the development of the railroad in northern British Columbia or about the improvement at the airports of Calgary, Saskatoon, London and many other places. He was not interested in that. He did not talk about the improvement in safety standards. He was not interested in safety at the airports.


Mr. Paproski:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister summing up his whole debate now?


Jean Marchand: No, just part of it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I ask the minister a question while he is summing up?


Jean Marchand: No. I am just answering Mr. Turner.


An hon. Member:: Which Mr. Turner?


Jean Marchand: I only wish to make the point that we should be reasonable. As we used to say, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. That is fair enough. I will talk in a few minutes about what we have done in the field of new policy, and after that, perhaps the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre will justify what he said when he started talking. He started by saying that he was not personally opposed to the Minister of Transport, but after that he criticized me all the time.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Chairman, it is good to see the minister in such a jovial mood tonight. I take it he was replying to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Jean Marchand: No, no, it was a question by the hon. member for London East.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions I would like to ask the minister, and a number of them arise from the debate which has been going on with respect to the Crowsnest pass freight rate. I take it there has been a change in the attitude or the mind of the minister from last October, because in the same exercise last October when we talked about the Crowsnest freight rate the minister indicated and implied that at that point in time no one in his department, and certainly no one in his office, was working on any changes with respect to the Crowsnest freight rate. Then on January 30, 1975, at page 2747 of Hansard in a question posed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar the matter was again raised, and the minister replied that there had been no discussions or consideration with respect to changing any part of the Crowsnest freight rate. That was confirmed on January 31 in a reply to a question posed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The only thing the minister mentioned was the fact that he would not undertake to make that promise for the rest of the century.
In the discussion today it seems that the minister has implied that studies and consideration are going on with respect to the Crowsnest freight rate, and that in fact he is looking at means to transfer the advantage of the Crowsnest freight rate to the farmers of western Canada. I
Business of Supply
wonder if the minister could inform the House or elaborate on just what form that transfer might take and what sort of studies and consultations are taking place. I notice that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is here, and he has indicated that he very much enjoyed the-


Gerald William Baldwin: He is the associate minister of transport.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member for Peace River has said that he is the associate minister of transport. The Minister of Justice has indicated in a press release that he takes very seriously the input of western Canadian farmers, and I know that he has been out west discussing freight rates and the whole subject of rail transportation. I am wondering if the minister can take the House into his confidence and outline what kind of review there might be in respect of the Crowsnest freight rate, having regard to the fact that the subject of the Crowsnest freight rate is actively under consideration.
Will there be a change in the statutes? Will it be a form of subsidy to producers? Will it be in the form of a subsidy to the railway companies? I sincerely hope the minister will clarify that once and for all, because it is an issue which affects every western Canadian and particularly every western Canadian grain producer. If the minister could do that, I think the record would certainly be put straight, and hopefully that would allay the fears that the whole concept of the Crowsnest freight rate might be removed. But if the advantages are to be maintained, I think the minister owes it to this House and to the country to advise us of just what form the transfer of the advantage will take.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, once or twice this afternoon the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville put exactly the same question to me. The first time he was not satisfied with the answer, and I gave another answer. I do not know whether he is satisfied, but I have already given the answer. I would appreciate it if hon. members would read Hansard tomorrow. It is not that I do not want to make the effort of answering, but the more answers one gives, the more interpretations can be given to those answers. I prefer to maintain what I have already said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, it is precisely this kind of thing which this committee is trying to clear up. The minister is now being as evasive as he was with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. If he cannot remember the answer, perhaps he might prevail upon his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to answer the question because he seems to answer these questions more frequently than the Minister of Transport himself. I listened very carefully to the response the minister gave to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and it was very cloudy and confusing.
I simply want clarification. If the Minister of Justice is prepared to stand in his place and respond, I would certainly accept his answer because I believe that the Minister of Justice has a plan and has been actively engaged in considering the Crowsnest freight rate, and ways and means to alter it. As the hon. member for Crowfoot pointed out in his contribution to this debate, we all know that the railways are engaged in a very vigourous campaign to undo the Crowsnest freight rate, and the minister seems to
5764

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
be acquiescing in their request. For example, we know, and I am sure that the minister knows, that the average per ton mile freight rate with respect to the Crowsnest pass is something in the order of 0.5 cents. The Chairman of the CPR in the transport committee the other day indicated that he considered a fair rate to be something in the order of four times that amount, yet at the same time we find that in moving grain from Thunder Bay to Montreal, which is not governed by the Crowsnest freight rate, CP Rail is charging 0.97 cents per ton mile.
If the minister is going to sit in his place and condone and acquiesce in that kind of action, to the destruction of the Crowsnest freight rate, aided and abetted by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, we in western Canada and we in this whole country are in for a rude awakening because this minister and the Minister of Justice seem to be on the road to ruining any advantages the transportation policy of this country may have for western grain producers.
I am not satisfied with the minister's answer, and I reiterate that if the Minister of Justice knows the position and the policy of the government better than the Minister of Transport, perhaps he may want to answer.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, these are my estimates and I am supposed to answer the questions. What I said this afternoon will appear in Hansard tomorrow, and it is not what the hon. member repeated. He can check Hansard to see what I said. All the freight rates are a part of the policy we are working on, and I stated that we will act in such a way that western farmers will not lose anything in the new transportation policy or the new freight rate structures.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Transport how he proposes to transfer the advantage of the Crowsnest freight rates to the western Canadian farmer?


Jean Marchand: This is part of the general policy that we are going to discuss in a short time, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to receive any opinion that the hon. member may have.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I ask the minister a further question, Mr. Chairman? Will legislation be introduced in the House at the appropriate time to deal with this aspect of the transportation policy?


Jean Marchand: I have every reason to believe that if the House agrees to discuss this in the standing committee-because it has to be referred to a standing committee of the House-then we will be in a position to discuss the new policy and the principles of what we intend to do before the end of June.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would undertake to guarantee to the House that legislation will be brought forth before any changes are made unilaterally. Will the policy position papers that the minister is now improvising be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to be dealt with as was promised by the minister on April 25, 1974, at

page 48 of issue No. 4 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is one point I should like to have clarified. Which law is the hon. member referring to that should be modified?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand that the Crowsnest freight rates are statutory law. Will the minister undertake to bring forth legislation? We hear conflicting views. One time we hear the minister saying that the Crowsnest freight rates would not be touched; we hear the Minister of Justice saying that the Crowsnest freight rates would not be touched; and today we find that they will be touched and the advantages will be transferred. Will those advantages be transferred to the producers or will they be in the form of a subsidy to the railway companies?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I am not in the position to say there will be any modification to that statute so I cannot guarantee that we are going to introduce legislation. It may very well happen that no legislation at all will be introduced on that subject.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would undertake to tell the House what procedure the government is adopting with respect to the review of the Crowsnest freight rates? Is it going through the CTC? Is it going through the grains group? Is it going through the upper echelons of the minister's office, or is it being studied by the Department of Transport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as soon as the new policy on freight rates is discussed by the committee, or by the House, we may make some recommendations and those recommendations can be modified according to the suggestions of the opposition. I am not going to say at this time what is going to happen when the policy itself is still not defined.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the minister got authority under the National Transportation Act now to change the Crowsnest rates?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member can debate this at that time if he wants to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, this commitment is like so many others that we have received from this minister. On February 24, 1975, and it was classified as a great breakthrough, we found in that report that there were changes with respect to rate groupings, changes with respect to maximum rate restrictions, long and short haul-I could quote ad infinitum the commitments that were made. In regard to the minister's commitment to establish rate groupings to aid industrial development in small centres which had been promised at that time, I wonder if the minister could now tell the House when these will be put in place?


Jean Marchand: According to the agreement we reached in the west recently, the railways are holding discussions with the provinces and trying to reach an agreement on this particular subject.
May 13, 1975


Gérald Laniel: I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, there are many questions that I should like to put to the minister about transportation in the Atlantic region-not the Crowsnest freight rates. Until we get a new policy, however, it seems that we are going to get just vague answers.
The minister said something this afternoon which I should like to have clarified. He referred to the changes in the Maritime Freight Rates Act raising the subsidy from 30 per cent to 50 per cent on goods moving outside the Atlantic region. That left the impression that we are doing very well. He did not mention the huge increase of 25 per cent, and likely more coming, on all movements within the Atlantic region, which will go hard with the small and middle sized business men in the area about which we are concerned. We welcome the raise to 50 per cent from 30 per cent for movements outside the Atlantic region, but we are more interested in stabilizing things within the region. That is one matter that I should like the minister to clear up for us.
I hope we will have some definite information on the new transportation policy that is coming out before the House adjourns for this session. I should like to ask the minister if there have been any requests from the province of Nova Scotia for special help for privately owned municipal bus companies in Cape Breton. These companies are writing to me and saying that, unless something special is done, they will go under. The situation is that grave, Mr. Chairman, and I could show the minister all kinds of correspondence about it. I realize this is primarily a provincial responsibility, but they do not seem to be handling it in Nova Scotia in a way to give some stability to the municipal bus companies.
I have a third question that I should like the minister to spend a few minutes on, and to be as specific as he can. I realize he cannot speak for cabinet, but when can we expect an announcement on whether his department is going to recommend a merchant marine for Canada? The minister has said on several occasions that he is in favour of this, and I have heard him refer to it myself. Is his department going to recommend this to cabinet and, if so, when can we expect an announcement? This is vital to the development of the Atlantic region, and I hope it will be in the new transportation policy.
I hope the minister will consider the movement of goods from the Atlantic region to central Canada and will look into the way in which the Maritime Freight Rates Act needs to be adjusted from time to time. How will the federal government, with the help of Atlantic province premiers, develop our superports so that we can take advantage of new technologies in transportation, deal more with the rest of the world by developing our export sector, and concern ourselves less with so-called internal transportation links between the Atlantic region and central Canadian provinces? These transportation links have been of concern to us for 100 years and we have made relatively little progress.
Business of Supply
I agree that in the metropolitan areas of the Atlantic region we have made substantial progress in the last ten years. This progress is not really the result of deliberate government policies but is the result of defence spending in Nova Scotia and growth of government services.
One million people, in Canadian terms but not world terms, are living on the margin of subsistence in the Atlantic region of this country. The government's policy must be geared to help them.
Let me repeat and clarify my previous questions, in case the minister has forgotten them. First, I wish the minister would clarify the statement he made today concerning the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It has been suggested that the act is of benefit to the Atlantic region. How will we continue to feel the benefit in the Atlantic region in view of the increase requested by the railways? Further, has the minister received requests from the government of Nova Scotia for special help for privately owned municipal bus companies in Cape Breton Island? These companies are constantly writing to me, saying they will go under unless something is done. Thirdly, when can we expect an announcement from the minister or the department saying that he or the department recommend the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine? I repeated my questions in case the minister forgot them.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I said this afternoon that it is true, we improved the subsidy system of the Atlantic provinces. It is true that most rates were increased, although some have been decreased a little at our request, as we thought they were unjust. But we must consider this in terms of relationships, in terms of what has gone on in the rest of Canada. These increases did not take place only in the Maritimes; they took place everywhere in Canada. The subsidy which the Maritimes receive is something which they have and the others do not have. I think the hon. member was suggesting something like this, "You agreed to give us a 50 per cent subsidy on certain commodities, but it is not worth it, because rates have increased generally-


Andrew Hogan: Who said it is not worth it?


Jean Marchand: That was the suggestion. The problem is this: the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces in general, wanted to be in a position to compete in central Canada with their manufactured goods, and they received a subsidy of 50 per cent on a great number of commodities. The fact that there was a 25 per cent, 20 per cent or 15 per cent increase across the board in Canada does not change the relative position of the Maritimes. That area has received a special subsidy because it is located far from markets. This statement holds true for the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and for the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I think we provided about $22 million to the Atlantic provinces under the assitance legislation, and $14 million under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It is unjust not to mention that, and to say, "But you must not consider that, because our rates have been increased." I say that you were not placed in an unfavourable position on account of these increased freight rates. Of course you do not like it. I do not like it. I do not like inflation, and I do not like price
29561-2U/2

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
increases. Neither does anybody else. In Europe, the United States and elsewhere, people do not like these things. As I say, we do not like it, but your relative position is better than it was. We have reached an agreement. I met with the hon. member's provincial minister. I even met with the premier of Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Even with the premier?


Jean Marchand: Oh, yes! I have no prejudices! We said on that occasion, and I think this was published in the newspapers, that if any industries in the Atlantic provinces are affected by these increases, which are being asked for by the railways, to the point where they must curtail their production or close down, please communicate with us and we will see that such industries are given special help by the CTC or the federal government. Up to now we have received no demands, or no requests at all, only complaints in general terms like the one made a few minutes ago. I do not think we can establish a meaningful freight structure in Canada that way.
We have worked on the policy all year and we are convinced, more than ever, that we must deal separately with each region. The problem is not the same everywhere. The problem of northern Ontario is not that of southern Ontario; the problem of the Atlantic provinces is not that of B.C.; the problem of the prairies is not the problem of parts of Quebec.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And it took you five years to find that out? We have heard that so often from you.


Jean Marchand: Yes, you have heard it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: From you.


Jean Marchand: Yes, from me.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, do something.


Jean Marchand: We want to do something, not only talk about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Your speech has not changed in the last two years.


Jean Marchand: And your questions have not changed one iota.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And you still insist on making that same speech.


Jean Marchand: Not only are the questions the same, but-


Andrew Hogan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Jean Marchand: -most of the questions are in the same category. Up to 95 per cent of the questions which have been asked today in committee are questions-


Andrew Hogan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's zeal for transport policy in Canada, but I wonder if he can answer the second and third questions I asked.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Perhaps I should remind hon. members that, according to the agreement already accepted by the committee, the minister is speaking during the last 15 minutes allocated to him in order to summarize all points which were brought to his attention. At 9.30 a member of the official opposition will be entitled to speak for 15 minutes and close the debate.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I tried to be as cool as I could; but some always find a way to provoke me. I can take it and shoot back, to be sure, particularly after hearing the kind of questions I have heard here for two days. We were discussing transportation in Canada and trying to find a new policy which will bring more justice, more equality to the transport system of Canada, and all we have heard are small and mean questions concerning one small corner of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You call freight rates a small item? Nonsense! This is something we shall remember.


Jean Marchand: Those are the kinds of questions which were asked 95 per cent of the time. The other 5 per cent was taken up with cries of a kind which have nothing to do with argument, reason or intelligence.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We shall see just how small an item freight rates are.


Jean Marchand: Most members, I know, are convinced that transportation is a serious matter. Some say that I keep repeating the same thing. Of course I do and I am going to keep on repeating it, because I want something to be understood very well by all Canadians and by the majority of this House.
We have to take into account the special conditions of each region so that the policy we develop is equitable, accessible and efficient. We do not want a transportation policy such as that set out in the old act where it must first be economic, then efficient, and then adequate. This is something which has some bearing in the law. We have been working on it. We have not been working alone, but with the provinces and the railways.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Answer his questions. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond did not put mean questions. He is not getting answers.


Jean Marchand: The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the rules of the game. At this time I have 15 minutes to sum up and close this part of the debate. Following my remarks, a member of the opposition will be in the same position. Therefore I do not have to answer any more than I have done. The Leader of the Opposition is just trying to take a few minutes away from me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Members opposite do not like it. Did they not accept this rule?


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have been winding up all evening.
May 13, 1975


Jean Marchand: I think it would be impossible to wind you up. We not only have to study the problems of the railways, freight rates, trucking, buses, ports, and ships, but study them altogether to see how those modes of transportation can be integrated into the best system that we can produce for Canada. We have been working on this.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell us about it.


Jean Marchand: You do not know what has been done. You have not read it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Do you know?


Jean Marchand: Yes, but you do not know, so shut up and wait until you hear it. When you have heard it, you may want to criticize. I do not think the role of the opposition is to just yell without knowing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: There are men who are very serious. They-have spent their whole life on transportation. They have been working on this policy for many months, trying to find the best formula. We want to find a solution to the problem in the west as well as in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: When are we going to get the policy?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Before the next election.


Jean Marchand: I remember at the beginning I used to react violently when members opposite made these remarks. I no longer react violently. I remember the first time I talked about the law, amendments to the Immigration Act, and a new policy members opposite, and I could give their names, said "When is the minister going to bring that in? It has been four months now." It was brought in. It passed. Now there is talk about changing it. It was the same when we talked about Manpower, and when we created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Members opposite said, "You are not interested in that. You are not going to create it." It has now been in operation for many years. When members opposite get the books in their hands, they will stop saying, "Give it to me, please." However, outside the things they will regret saying tomorrow and the things I may regret saying tomorrow, I think we can work on a new policy for Canada which will help both the producers and the carriers.


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean Marchand: All I can say is that before the end of June cabinet will have approved what will be the basic policy on transportation in Canada. That is all I will say because you do not believe it.
In conclusion I wish to thank the western farmers who received me with such warmth. If they could see how their representatives are behaving here this evening, I think they would change their minds about a certain number of them. They forget that this is an important problem. It
Business of Supply
should be discussed in a serious way, not by laughing and yelling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't take that, Otto.


Jean Marchand: I will not take it out. I will explain that in the west at any time. I feel at home there. It is my country as well as eastern Canada.
I thank those members who are really interested in the welfare of this country and who asked serious questions. Even though some of the questions were difficult, I think they were fair. That is one of the rules of the game. There are others who only cried "shut up" or "produce". I do not know if that is recorded in Hansard. If it is, that is what they leave for the future generations of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was outside the chamber for a moment or two. I did not get the purport of an answer the minister gave to one of the questions I asked earlier in the debate. Possibly I could ask the minister to repeat it briefly. I am sorry I was not here when he said it.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member may be very interested in getting the answer, but that can only be done with the consent of the representative of his party who is entitled to 15 minutes to sum up the debate. If I were to allow the question without the consent of the hon. member for Lisgar, I would have to allow the minister to reply. That would take away time from the 15 minutes that are available. I am at the disposal of the hon. member for Lisgar.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is agreed now that the hon. member for Central Nova has at least stated his position on the record, and the minister will hopefully answer tomorrow the question which was asked at the start of the debate.
In winding up this two-day debate on transportation I should like to make a few points for the Minister of Transport to note. In his last few statements the hon. gentleman seemed to be doing some philosophizing, but it comes back to this: certainly, since I have been in the House, that is, since the fall of 1970, the minister has said basically the same things as he has been saying for the past four years; I would assume they were the same things he was saying when he was minister responsible for DREE. I do not necessarily say this in a partisan way, but the hon. gentleman does seem to be buried in the bureaucracy of his department. He is like someone trying to escape from an octopus without knowing how to do it.
He says that the same questions have been put to him over and over again. I suppose they will continue to be put to him until some of the problems to which they relate have been solved. He also said he had been obliged to sit through a lot of small and mean questions. Well, if the hon. gentleman thinks they are small and mean, they are the kind of questions which represent people across

May 13, 1975
Business of Supply
Canada. I thought there was a good cross-section of views put forward in the past two days.
I am glad to see that the new deputy minister of transport sat through most of the debate. This may give him a better understanding of the transportation problems we experience in this country. In the course of the debate we have covered many areas, but there are many other areas which have not been covered. I suppose we could continue this discussion for the rest of the week and still find we have not touched upon all phases of transportation. In the last two days the minister at least seemed to be interested-more interested than he seemed to be during other debates on transportation. I think he should be given some credit for this. But in no way has he convinced the official opposition, at least, that he has his department under control.
In answering our questions-what you would consider the 5 per cent of the good questions which were asked-I really feel you did a lot of waffling.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member, and I think he should make a strong effort to address himself to the Chair.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologise. Any further remarks to the minister will be made through yourself.
We have all heard the term "too little and too late". I always hesitate to use it because it is a stock phrase to use when speaking as a member of the opposition about a minister or a government department. Nevertheless I think it perfectly describes the situation which now exist-it describes the efforts of the minister and his department to rectify the situation which has developed over the past few years. One can go over the policy guidelines which the government has used for the last two election campaigns and see that virtually no part of that program has been implemented. The minister has finally got a larger staff; we have seen a substantial increase, a 39 per cent increase in the staff of the department itself. It seems the minister is finally beginning to realize the extent of problems with which he is faced.
As to the ambivalent statements respecting the Crows-nest pass rates and the jurisdictions of the two ministers, the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, I venture to say that the Minister of Transport is not quite sure of his ground in connection with the Crowsnest rates. I believe the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has that issue pretty well under his wing at the present time.
I should like to pass on a word of caution to the Minister of Transport. If there is any attempt to change the Crowsnest pass rates without legislation there will not only be a rebellion in the House of Commons, there will be a rebellion throughout western Canada. I would point out that there are two studies going on at the present time, one is the Snavely study in which a costing account will be done-it will take about eight months-and the other is the Hall Commission which will take about 18 months. I say to the minister, and to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, that it would be foolish to bring in any change whatsoever regardless of the new policy we are

talking about as far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned.
Once again, and I am not speaking politically, we in the official opposition sincerely believe the Minister of Transport is not giving any direction to his department. He is not giving any leadership. I commend the deputy minister for sitting through this debate. Possibly the most important aspect of the whole debate is that we feel the Minister of Transport does not understand the importance of transportation in such regions of the country as western Canada, the maritimes, and northern Canada. This has been demonstrated time and time again. If the minister can convince the official opposition that he is making an effort to change his attitude we shall certainly give him all due credit.
I had intended to mention the unfulfilled promises contained in the transportation policy which the Liberals presented in 1974-promises which have not been fulfilled. I shall not do so because my time is running out. The fact is that very few of these promises have been implemented in any way at all. When the minister reacts with irritation to criticism from this side of the House that he is not doing anything, we are entitled to bear in mind the failure to carry out the policy put forward at the time of the election and draw our own conclusions.
In conclusion, officials of Air Canada will be before the transportation committee in the near future, hopefully toward the end of May or the first part of June. We will have the new modes of transportation policy that the minister talked about some time in June also before the transportation committee. All that is left for me to say at the present time is that this kind of debate has been constructive. I think it has brought the problems of transportation in various areas of the country to what you might consider front and centre stage. In doing that hopefully it will focus the attention of the minister and his department on the various problems which were raised and alluded to over the past two days.
I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House certainly welcome any move or policy commitments in the upcoming months, and we will take part to the fullest extent in any policy debate on transportation in the future.


Gérald Laniel: May I call it 9.45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to sections (9) (a) and (9)(c), of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

Department of Transport votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, L55, 60, L65, L70, L75, 80, 85, 90, L95, L100, 105 and 110 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the resolutions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 13, 1975

Resolutions reported and concurred in.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have now completed the estimates that have been considered. I was going to put to Your Honour that the proceedings are analogous to the proceedings we used to have in this House some years ago after supply, when some time was left before ten o'clock. During that period grievances were raised by hon. members. It was the right of members of the House, before the estimates were finally completed, to present grievances to the House through the Chair.
We have some excellent grievances, Mr. Speaker, which we could raise in the ten minutes that are left. I am particularly interested in the grievance concerning the infamous conduct of the government in refusing to allow civil servants to appear before committees, and I should just like to raise the matter briefly. I hope we will have some reply in the ten minutes remaining until the adjournment motion can be put. I think it is the best use that can be made of the time since it is not yet ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member sought the floor on what I expected to be a point of order, which it seemed to be in the first part of his remarks. At the same time he seems to have made the decision for the Chair, and he went on to adopt a new procedure, to which of course the Chair has no objection. The committee did not make any suggestion in this regard, but since the House is in a kind of trial mood I am ready to put the question to the House and seek unanimous consent in order to use the next ten minutes to experience once again the grievance procedure. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) or to other hon. members to use the time available until ten o'clock for this purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is an experimental period, and we have no objection. I am sure that the House leader for the official opposition will give our side equal time, however.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, I will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to adopt this procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE-PRINCIPLE GOVERNING APPEARANCES BY CIVIL SERVANTS AS COMMITTEE WITNESSES
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is so serious that I expect to give the members on the government side far more time than I take to answer these accusations. I put it to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the present position is shocking and intolerable. It is a grievance that must be brought up in the House. We have a situation where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by what is the equivalent of a Papal Bull, is saying that a civil servant cannot appear before a committee The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) appeared before a committee of the House and
Public Service
said that civil servants can only appear when he allows them to appear, that they can only say what he allows them to say.
I suggest to the members of the House that it is this House that is the highest court in the land, and that we cannot tolerate any decision that exempts a minister or a civil servant from the rules that apply to all others. If a witness is called before a committee and refuses to appear or to answer, then he or she can be committed for contempt. Why then should civil servants be exempt?
I recognize that there are situations when civil servants should not be allowed to answer questions. The secretary to the Privy Council, or the secretary to the Cabinet, should not be allowed to answer questions dealing with what went on in Cabinet. Of course, I do not think an awful lot goes on when we see the results. Nevertheless, he should not be allowed to answer questions as to what goes on in Cabinet. Outside of that he is no better than anybody else in this country, and if he is called as a witness he should be compelled to appear.
I know my hon. friend is going to talk about responsible government. Of course we have responsible government, or we used to have, but the government is not very responsible now. Responsible government does not mean that civil servants can be exempted, or that they are above the law and should not be competent and compellable witnesses. That is what I would like to hear my hon. friend speak on when he replies.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this subject is not new. It has been referred to during the question period on a number of occasions, and I understand it was discussed yesterday when my parliamentary secretary appeared before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. It seems to me that the essence of the point is who is answerable to parliament, and I suggest it is the government and the ministers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, no.


Mitchell William Sharp: Surely if that were not the case we would find that members on the other side could be subject to questioning, and so on, and that is not the principle upon which we operate.


Walter David Baker: We didn't think you understood; now we know.


Mitchell William Sharp: Ministers take responsibility not only for their own actions but for the actions of their departments and for their civil servants. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can remember when he was the prime minister of a province.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a long time ago.


Mitchell William Sharp: He then had to take the responsibility for the actions of his civil servants. That is the principle upon which we operate. If you go behind the minister and compel civil servants to appear, then, of course, you break down the whole principle of ministerial responsibility.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Rubbish.

May 13, 1975
Public Service


Mitchell William Sharp: I suggest to my hon. friends opposite that they should consider very carefully what they are doing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We do, every day.


Mitchell William Sharp: If they were to force officials to appear before committees then, of course, the minister could hide behind civil servants.


An hon. Member:: You do every day.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure that is a situation they would not relish any more than we would. I suggest that this is really a spurious issue. I can only believe there are some people on the other side who have some personal animosity toward particular civil servants and are trying in this way to vent their feelings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as the ministers are concerned, we are prepared to answer any questions put to us and, if necessary, we are prepared to have our officials advise us. There are occasions in committee when ministers do ask their deputies to come and help them in answering questions. Indeed, we have seen this happen during this day's debate in the committee of the whole when the minister was advised by some of his officials. No one in this House asked those officials to answer. They were asked by the minister to be present. Surely this is the principle upon which this House must operate, otherwise the whole system of responsible government breaks down.


Gerald William Baldwin: Look what happened to Nixon. That's what he said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to come here and hear the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) speaking about the reliance of Cabinet ministers appearing before committees of the House of Commons, considering estimates or otherwise, on civil servants, and their responsibility to answer questions on policy instead of public servants. In light of that I would be very interested in knowing what was the rationale that was followed by the Government of Canada in refusing to send either a senior public servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council or the official of that office now held by Mr. Gordon Robertson, to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and not even sending a minister who could answer on behalf of that public servant.


Gerald William Baldwin: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: We had an absolutely absurd situation in the standing committee last night when a public servant who could have provided the answers was not allowed to come as a result of a decision of the government, and when there was not even a minister or a member of the Cabinet sent.
Instead, the person who was sent was a parliamentary secretary, not to the minister responsible for the estimates being considered, but a parliamentary secretary to the wrong minister. That is surely an absurd situation which, if it had any purpose at all, was designed to obstruct the capacity of parliament in considering the estimates to

speak to anyone in authority who might have been able to describe the policy reasons for which those estimates were being presented and for which support was being asked.
The minister just cannot have it both ways. If he is going to deny the right of parliament to question public servants on important questions when a minister is present, he surely cannot, if he has any belief at all in the parliamentary system, refuse to send to a standing committee on estimates either a public servant who can answer questions, or a representative of the Cabinet who is in a position to speak on policy matters.
I would be very interested in knowing what rationale, if any, the minister and his colleagues were following last night in sending a person without Cabinet responsibility, or sending a person who does not even have derivative responsibility, if such exists, such as a parliamentary secretary, to a committee considering estimates.


An hon. Member:: Using that person as a flunky.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: The only possible reason might be-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: The only possible reason might be to cut off any consideration or analysis of those estimates.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I just take a few seconds to congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on initiating this interesting procedure, and to stake a claim for one of our grievances the next time this opportunity occurs.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker, which may have more attraction for the President of the Privy Council. Would he be good enough to indicate to the House the business he intends to proceed with on Thursday of this week?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the House is aware, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is another allotted day, and I understand there will be a motion by the NDP. On Thursday we will call Bill C-47 amending the Judges Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not another one of those?


Mitchell William Sharp: If we conclude that on Thursday we will go on with the salaries bill dealing with Lieutenant
Governors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no!
May 13, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to obtain a reply to the supplementary question I posed on May 1 asking whether the Canadian government has approached, or will be approaching the new government of South Viet Nam with a request to allow relatives of Canadian Vietnamese to immigrate to Canada. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) referred this question to his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
My supplementary question was prompted by disturbing press reports about the chaotic circumstances surrounding the abrupt withdrawal of Canadian diplomatic personnel from Saigon on April 24, 1975, five days before the official surrender of the Government of South Viet Nam to the P.R.G. As a result, more than 3,500 sponsored or nominated relatives of Canadian residents were stranded in South Viet Nam. I hope that they are not abandoned.
Canada has an enviable record of humanitarianism. Our country has assisted in many ways in the reunification of thousands of families. Since 1946, 10 per cent of all immigrants to Canada have been refugees. This humanitarian tradition is the pride of Canadians, and a credit to Canada's enlightened and courageous governments.
This same humanitarian tradition must be carried on by our government by assisting sponsored and nominated Vietnamese relatives of Canadian residents. Canadian immigration officials sent over 3,500 letters to heads of families in Viet Nam promising Canadian visas. These people and their relatives in Canada are awaiting our government's action to help reunify their families. Canadians have a pride in their country's reputation for diplomatic excellence, and our government should not spare any effort, any peaceful avenue, to make known to the new government of South Viet-nam that we would like the stranded relatives of Canadian Vietnamese to be allowed to emigrate to Canada.
Furthermore, it has been reported that there are more than 30 Canadians in South Viet Nam, including some missionaries and their families. Their status is unclear. Their safety may be in danger. That is why I ask what the Canadian government is doing to assist these unfortunate people.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to respond to the question put by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). His concern for humanitarian considerations, his concern for immigrants, and the special interest he has
Adjournment Debate
taken in immigrants to this country, both in his own constituency and in the country at large, are well known.
With regard to the question he has raised concerning the families and relatives of the Vietnamese people, the government is now considering the question of recognizing the new government in South Viet Nam and establishing diplomatic relations with that country. If diplomatic relations are established and a Canadian mission is sent to Saigon, the question of relatives of Canadian citizens being allowed to come to Canada would be a natural subject for discussion in view of the government's well known policy of encouraging the reunification of families of Canadian citizens.


PUBLIC SERVICE-NURSES IN HALIFAX-REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF WAGE PARITY IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE STRIKE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I live in a part of Halifax which is a block away from the Camp Hill Veterans Hospital. This is an ancient structure not in the style of the modern hospitals. Fortunately it is to be replaced soon. If one goes over there, as I do about 20 times a year, one will find that the veterans are complaining about a good number of things, but I believe this is in the tradition of veterans. The one thing they have never complained about is the quality of the nursing services they have received from the dedicated women whose case I wish to bring before the House this evening.
I have been there and I have seen men, in the last stages of going out of this world, surrounded by these angels of mercy. These are scenes I find impossible to describe in this House, but which will be written on my heart and my mind until the end of my days. Therefore I have no hesitation, and indeed I have a great deal of willingness to enter into the battle on behalf of these people. I feel that their pay position is bad, and I hope that sometime I will be able to tug sufficiently at the strings on the heart of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) in order to correct it.
For years the Conservative candidates in Atlantic Canada have stood for the removal of these iniquitous regional inequities, and in the last election campaign we were joined by our friends from the other side. Liberal candidates meeting in Halifax expressed their support for a full examination of existing regional wage policies to ensure greater equity for all within the federal public service. This included such senior adornments as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), plus the more junior ministers, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald).
There were 32 Liberal candidates who took those words forth on the hustings in the last federal election and, given the circumstances of that election, this immediately became translated into removal of regional wage discrimination and inequity. But we now know that those were very hollow words indeed because only recently the nurses at Camp Hill Hospital, and other nurses, continued their fight to remove these inequities by making public protests, one day strikes and the like.
5772

May 13, 1975
Adjournment Debate
It is a fact that in 1964 there were about 25,000 in the federal government employment staff who received regional rates, and in 1974 under the "just society" this number was 48,300, almost twice as many. The actual increase was from 15.5 per cent of strength to 19.5 per cent of strength. I provide these figures thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), who has pursued this with the help of a member of his staff named Henry Brown with remarkable vigour and strength of purpose.
It is no wonder then that Halifax nurses at Camp Hill Hospital and nurses in other parts of Canada can complain, but in the case of Halifax their complaint is not only that the nurses there are not receiving the average for federal nurses across Canada, they are not even achieving what is paid to provincial nurses, and yet the President of the Treasury Board, the present incumbent in that position, in writing my colleague on March 4 said that:
The Treasury Board, as the employer, seeks to pay public servants rates of pay comparable to those paid by other employers for similar occupations.
That is simply hogwash as it concerns the nurses at Camp Hill Hospital. On May 1, 1974, I wrote to the then president of the treasury board, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), and I quote:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Two wards at Camp Hill Hospital are now closed because of a shortage of nurses. Surely this cries for a whole new approach to a federal policy which is driving nurses away from the employ of the federal government.
Nothing has happened to alleviate that particular situation. The number of wards occupied at Camp Hill Hospital is still down, and there are still vacant wards, vacant beds and vacant space, at a time when veterans are growing older and when there is obviously more of a cry for medical attention for them. If this does not tear at the conscience of hon. members, I do not know what can.
Finally, a doctor from Halifax who is a very respected member of the medical community, has written me about the salary policy of the federal government, and I quote:
When they come down east, the game has a new set of rules. The principle now is to pay regional pay rates, and not a consistent rate across the country. Thus they can pay federally employed nurses at Camp Hill Hospital the relatively low regional rates, rather than the much higher salary scales paid to federally employed nurses in Ontario. Paying federal employees on regional pay scales seems a clear principle as well.
But how come the rules change according to the circumstances?
He writes more than that, but that is the question I pose in winding up these remarks. My argument is not only to overcome the disparity that exists between nurses federally employed in the Halifax area and their sisters in provincial employ, but also between these federally employed nurses and their sisters employed elsewhere in Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). His concern for his contituents in that area is commendable. The pay policy is a regional one, that is, people employed in one area of the country will be

paid rates comparable to rates in the private sector and other wages in the area.
The pay proposal of the Treasury Board for the majority of nurses in the Halifax area represented 26.1 per cent in the first year and 12.7 per cent in the second, retroactive to December 30, 1974, with considerable improvements in vacations, which in fact provides not only comparability but parity with nurses employed by the provincial governments.
This, as part of the total Treasury Board offer, was seen to be "fair and reasonable" as a basis for comparability by all three members of a recent conciliation board, including the nurse's own representative, the president of Quebec Nurses Inc. This unanimous conciliation board report has been accepted by the Treasury Board but has not yet been sent to the nurses for ratification by the professional institute.


NATIONAL PARKS-TOLLS ON RIDEAU-TRENT-SEVERN WATERWAY-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH CORTS COMMITTEE BEFORE IMPOSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe-North):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) follows on one asked by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) concerning the authorization of the first ever tolls on the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway.
I am particularly disturbed about this toll on a waterway that was used first of all for military purposes, then for commerce and trade, and goes through the heartland of Ontario connecting Lake Huron and Georgian Bay with Lake Ontario. It travels for a couple of hundred miles through some of the most scenic and agricultural country in the world. There are two very fine lift locks which people come hundreds of miles to see, and the waterway serves a population of over 60 million people.
I think this is a very backward step on the part of the minister. At one time there were tolls on the roads in Ontario-the last one at Bradford about 40 miles north of Toronto. At one time it was used for oxen and horses and carts, but the toll was abolished because the province began to build highways into the north country to develop it. The main waterway we had then was the one which connected Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay and went from Trenton along Lake Ontario to the Ottawa River, down to the St. Lawrence. This is a particularly historic area and I am amazed that the minister would impose this toll without consulting parliament or consulting the CORTS Advisory Committee which was appointed by the province to work in conjunction with the federal government.
I suggest that at no time has the CORTS Advisory Committee advised the imposition of tolls. Rather, it boasts of the fact that here was an area which people could enjoy, an area rich in history. And it has a great history. Hon. members who know their history will recall that Champlain came to Georgian Bay, and established the first white man's agricultural land on the north American continent. We look with pride on our history; we look on this land with a sense of history, knowing it was used by Indians before Champlain came there. Yes, Champlain himself stopped over in that area of the country I have the
May 13, 1975

honour to represent. It seems sacrilegious for someone now to come along and say that we must impose tolls on the canal. The tolls are for what? We are proud of this area. This land is part of Huronia. The settlers who came to the area built up Canada. Now those who want to use the waterway are to be taxed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I regret that the minister did not see fit to consult the CORTS Advisory Committee, and ask it what it thought was the best thing to do. After all, the committee did not meet all that long ago. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, were a member of this House when Mr. Pickers-gill said in this House that this area is a great tourist attraction and has brought the province a great deal of money. Many people are attracted to the area. He suggested that Uncle Leslie, that great premier of Ontario who has since gone to his reward and who won the respect of Liberals, Conservatives and NDP members, should be given a suitable birthday present. He was to be asked to carry on the tradition of this province in a suitable and honourable way. This was not done.
Previously, action was taken under the Conservative government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That government, in its wisdom, set aside $20 million for the repairing of the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway. Two locks were to be put in. Let me be fair to those members of the Liberal party who acted on this matter. Hon. George Mcllraith, now a member of the other place, looked at plans concerning the waterway system and told me personally that what was proposed was good, that the plan was good, and that so far as he was concerned as minister, the plans would be carried out. I go further and say that the plans were carried out to the letter. Now a minister without sense of history has come along and is doing things differently. Perhaps he does not know the history of the area as perhaps you, I, and others in Ontario and Quebec know it. Perhaps he has lost perspective, has forgotten history. I suggest that those who forget the past can never deal with the future.
The government has already taxed the voters of the area in connection with certain changes which have been made. Now the minister is proposing another tax, a toll to be levied on those who use the waterway. I remind that House that people have built cottages along the waterway. They rented the land from the Department of Transport and paid taxes on it. Incidentally, the rent was recently increased. Those people experienced difficulties in carting the lumber to the area. They hewed down trees of the forest in order to build their houses. Now, if they want to
Adjournment Debate
use their cottages and they have no roadway in, they must pay a toll. In my opinion this is deception. I am a bit disturbed and a little disappointed that the minister has put on this tax.
In conclusion I want to ask some questions. What is the minister going to make out of this? What amount of money is he going to collect on it? What is he going to pay for the services he is giving? Where is that money to be spent? Is it to be spent on the Trent Canal, or not? The minister has not given any satisfactory answer to those questions.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) raised the matter of the relatively recently constituted CORTS Advisory Committee not having been consulted by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) in the matter of fees being charged on the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway.
The CORTS Advisory Committee is a body of ten private citizens, five appointed federally and five provincially, to advise the federal and provincial ministers of the public response to programs and developments in the canal corridor. Treasury Board had approved the increase in Parks Canada user fees for national parks, national historic parks and sites and canals on February 4, 1975. The CORTS Advisory Committee was created by the signing of the CORTS Agreement on February 20, 1975. Therefore consultation was impossible. The fees which Parks Canada is charging are not limited to the canals, but apply throughout the program. They are based on the recovery of a portion of the annual costs resulting from a major capital investment program of $376 million during the next five years. In the case of canals, the cost recovery is estimated to be 7 per cent of the annual operating costs of the canals.
It would be incongruous for the government to apply new or increased levels of fees for national parks and sites throughout Canada while leaving the canal's activity free from similar charges. It is a modest return on investment made by and for Canadians. The money is to be used to improve the system and to preserve the history of which the hon. member speaks so eloquently.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
29 561-2 2i'2

Wednesday, May 14, 1975