1975-05-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The deterioration of the telephone service between parliament hill and eastern Canada indicates the need for an investigation into the capabilities of Bell Telephone and CNT. The service can only be described as deplorable and a national disgrace. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That both agencies be called to account for their inability to cope with the normal needs of Canadians, particularly in the more remote provinces, before a joint committee on Transport and Communications, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and that the government order that future rate increases be denied until they satisfy the normal needs of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, and therefore the motion cannot be put.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising out of the outright refusal last week by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to allow a parliamentary committee to question his chief aide, Michael Pitfield, in his capacity of clerk of the Privy Council. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That in the opinion of the House no public servant, including Michael Pitfield, should be placed above and beyond the authority of this
elected parliament, that the refusal of the Prime Minister to allow the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee to question Mr. Pitfield constitutes extreme arrogance and utter contempt for the parliamentary process and that a full investigation of the staggering increases in costs of the Privy Council and Prime Minister's offices, including expenses for lavish living at 24 Sussex Drive, should be carried out by the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee with Michael Pitfield and all other witnesses deemed necessary by the committee being questioned.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: I detect that there is not unanimity, and therefore the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Baldwin:: If he can't answer questions any better than his boss, it would be a waste of time anyway.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, if he could be lured back into the House. He was here a minute ago, but in his absence I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of recent disputes concerning the funding of the-


Mr. Fairweather:: He is sneaking behind the curtain.


Charles Joseph Clark: I welcome the minister back to the House.
In light of recent disputes concerning the funding of the Berger Commission inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the funding of related groups appearing or wishing to appear before the commission, is it still the commitment of the minister and the government that there should be a complete and effective examination of the total environmental and social impact, long and short term, of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline on the northern environment and the people in the north?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the economic impact as well.

May 12, 1975
Oral Questions


BERGER COMMISSION-LACK OF FUNDS FOR NORTHERN ASSESSMENT GROUPS-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Charles Joseph Clark: Since the Northern Assessment Group is the only scientific and technical research team concerned with the long term effects of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline upon the environment and society of the Canadian north, and because the government has now cut that Northern Assessment Group from federal funding, will the minister please advise the House upon whom the obligation now lies for the assessment of the long term effects of a northern pipeline and how that group, whoever it is, will be funded?


J. Judd Buchanan: Last year when funds were provided to Mr. Justice Berger, the intention was that part of these funds would be used to enable the Northern Assessment Group to do its studies and the various analyses it had to do so that this information would be available to the commission. It is my understanding that was done. It is now a question of having the experts appear before the commission. On that issue, the decision was taken by the Treasury Board to provide the additional $100,000 to native groups so that they could hire or use the experts to appear as their witnesses before the commission.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. If it is determined that the investigative work referred to by the minister has not in fact, been carried out in an adequate way, is it the position of the government that there will be more funding to the Northern Assessment Group so that there will be a capacity to have information on the long-term environmental economic and social impacts of the pipeline on the north?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it was felt that the funding that was given through Mr. Justice Berger plus work that was done in-house by various government agencies which was made available to the commission, was sufficient for the research purposes.


BERGER COMMISSION-REASON FOR CUT IN FUNDING OF NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN INQUIRY
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On April 24 in response to questions the minister implied that this year's budget for the native organizations participating in the Berger Commission inquiry covered a shorter period than the 1974-75 budget. The 1974-75 funding, however, commenced in September and ran only seven months, a shorter period than the minister's nine months estimate for this year. In the light of those facts would the minister justify to the House the very substantial cut made with respect to native organizations?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will have to go back and check that item. It is my understanding that funding went back further than that. The feeling was, however, that the research, the studies and analyses were

being done primarily during that period. Now, we are basically funding appearances before the commission plus the informational aspect going on in the various small communities.


John Robert Holmes: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the statement by Mr. Ian Scott, counsel for the Berger inquiry as follows:
. The inquiry was advised in February by the department that the minister does not wish to support environmental organizations through the inquiry's operating budget...
Would the minister reconsider statements that he made on April 24 concerning the funding for the northern assessment group? Would he also indicate if he is prepared to make an announcement to the House concerning future funds for the Northern Assessment Group before the Berger Commission reconvenes?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said the funding would go-I stand by that statement. There is no intent to fund the Northern Assessment Group to any further extent. The intention is to fund native groups so that they can hire, if they wish, members of the Northern Assessment Group to appear as expert witnesses before the Berger Commission. That is the purpose of the additional $100,000 that has been given to the native groups.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance I shall direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Can he explain to the House the reason for the delay of 4'A months in tabling the final report on tax concessions to manufacturing and processing industries that is, the lower tax rate and the fast two-year write-off on machinery and equipment? Can he also inform the House whether the government intends to table the report and give the reason for the 4V4 month delay?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will take notice of the question and find out for the hon. member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is hardly good enough, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the delay in tabling the report results from the fact that the government is having difficulty proving that the tax cuts have actually created more jobs, as we have heard in this party from sources within the government? Is that the reason the report is not being tabled today?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will gladly take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
May 12, 1975


INQUIRY AS TO NEW PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS AND DATE OF BUDGET
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government intends to bring in new programs to create jobs shortly? Perhaps he can tell the House the date of the new budget.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the budget date is usually announced by the Minister of Finance and he will do so in due course.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
In view of the fact that work stoppages in postal services delay considerably normal mail delivery, can the minister tell the House whether he has looked with his colleagues into the possibility of having family allowance, old age pension and veterans' pension cheques distributed through banks and credit unions through a credit to each beneficiary's account which would be made up at the end of the month to each of those institutions, and of allowing the beneficiaries to select the bank or credit union of their choice?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we are co-operating closely with the departments responsible for issuing socio-economic cheques and the postal authorities. I believe we have reached agreements that are quite satisfactory to the beneficiaries.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? In view of indications given on Friday by finance officials during the federal-provincial consultations and by press reports over the weekend that a budget is to be presented on June 2, and as the working papers on consensus which the Minister of Finance tabled presumably form the basis from which the minister is prepared to negotiate, is the government prepared to delay the presentation of the budget if negotiations should go slowly, or has the Minister of Finance given business and labour a deadline, in effect, the date of the presentation of the budget?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take that to be a representation. I will gladly transmit it to the Minister of Finance.


ALLEGED SALE OF DISEASED MEAT BY QUEBEC PACKING COMPANY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary? As the minister warned last Friday that meat processed by a Quebec packing company may have come from dead or diseased animals and sold to consumers in the Province of Quebec, mostly in the form of minced meat or hamburg, what steps have been taken to track down this meat, reported to consist of approximately 210 tons, and what action is contemplated not only against Federal Packing Incorporated of Magog, Quebec, but against beef retailers who, as co-conspirators, accepted the tainted beef and sold it to unsuspecting consumers?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


THE MINISTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister announced, when leaving for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, a widespread shake-up of deputy ministers as a means of trying to strengthen the operations of government, is he planning, now that he has returned, to announce a similar widespread shake-up, in the near future in the cabinet as a means of trying to lift the country out of the chaotic condition in which its economy finds itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the premise of the question is incorrect, but if the hon. member believes in shake-ups, I suggest that his leader should shake up his front bench.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of snide, slick answer we have learned to expect from the Prime Minister. May I ask a supplementary question? Is not the real reason for his refusal to take action this: That he, like everybody else connected with the Ottawa scene, has learned that senior civil servants, not the cabinet, run the government and country, and that making a shift in the cabinet really would not have much effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member opposite is projecting from the time when he was a minister.

May 12, 1975
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am looking back to the good old days when we had action in this parliament and the government did a good job for the people of Canada.


BARLEY-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN QUOTA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can the minister inform us, western farmers, and particularly those in the Peace River district of British Columbia and Alberta, what action the minister through his agency is planning in order to lift the quota of three bushels per acre on barley, now that congestion on rail and ports, according to him, has been relieved?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is opening quotas as quickly as space allows. It is a situation that is continually improving. I believe there was a fairly generous addition of four bushels to the barley quota opened last week. I will check its applicability to the Peace River area.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when farmers get into the fields, buy fertilizer, machinery and equipment and hire labour to put the crop in the ground. If a further addition to the quota cannot be achieved within a reasonable time, will the minister consider some advance payments for barley immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this is hardly the time of year for advance payments. A more suitable time will be when the new crop year begins and the new limit of $15,000 which has been adopted comes into effect. However, as I indicated, the quotas on all grains are opening rapidly. Last week the wheat board announced the extension of the open quota to higher grades of wheat, and some additions in the case of barley. There will be a rapid movement of grain and I can therefore tell the hon. member to remain optimistic in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is sort of an epilogue to the very communicative question period of last Friday. Since the Prime Minister is in very good spirits today, possibly he can tell this House if he as head of the government going to the summit meeting in Brussels on NATO at the end of the month, will propose any change in Canada's commitment to the NATO force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT CANADIAN OFFSHORE RESOURCES IF CONFERENCE FAILS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that no consensus or agreement was reached at the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva and the next conference will not be held until March 29, 1976, in New York City, does the government plan on waiting for a general agreement that may not come within our lifetime or does it plan on taking unilateral action to protect Canadian offshore interests?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered this question last week, namely that there was delivered at the conference on Friday the single negotiating text which is now under study. In many aspects, it seems to meet the objectives of the Canadian government. However, it is still a negotiating text. It has to be negotiated at the next meeting. If it were possible to implement these provisions with respect to the fisheries immediately, one would be much more relaxed, but that is not possible. In the meantime, the government will appraise the situation and will consider among the possible options the prospect of unilateral action. However, that prospect has not yet been considered by the government as a whole.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: How long is the government willing to wait in hopes of getting general agreement? Is the government willing to take concerted action with other countries which have similar interests and, if so, what are the names of those countries which have indicated an interest in co-operating with Canada on this important matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, obviously one of the possibilities is action in concert with a number of other countries. At the Law of the Sea Conference, there was comment that other countries might be considering action. However, no decisions have been taken. We will obviously be in touch with any countries which are interested. It is one of the possibilities which will be considered. I believe that my colleague, the Minister of State (Fisheries), has already stated that the upcoming ICNAF meeting will deal with the Canadian proposal calling for a considerable reduction in the annual take in that area. It would seem to be premature to consider any action of any kind until the results of that meeting are clear. However, Canada will be putting forward a proposal there for considerable reductions.


NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY-INSISTENCE ON ADHERENCE TO TREATY BY COUNTRIES BUYING REACTORS ONLY IF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REQUIRED
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister explain statements made by him, both inside and outside the House last Friday, that where a Canadian reactor is being bought from Canada without Canadian financial assistance the government will not insist upon adherence to the non-proliferation treaty but that in cases where financial aid is required it will insist upon such adherence? Is not the danger of
May 12, 1975

Oral Questions
diversion of nuclear materials to weapons the basis of the treaty, and is not the danger as great in one case as in the other? Why the inconsistency?


An hon. Member:: Because he is a Liberal!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I see no inconsistency in the position which has been taken by the government. With respect to any nuclear sales we apply uniformly the same bilateral safeguards irrespective of the country concerned. These safeguards have already been outlined by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. So there is total uniformity.
With respect to membership in the NPT, we have stated that where the nuclear capability is being financed in part by Canada we shall ask for adherence to the treaty because in that situation it seems to me the responsibility of Canada is of a different character. In other cases, as has been stated, membership in the NPT will be an important factor to be taken into account but it will not be a pre-condition. That is clear, at least to me.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF REPORTS ARGENTINA MAY BE SELLING NUCLEAR MATERIAL TO LIBYA
Francis Andrew Brewin: It is beyond my comprehension why the treaty is a safeguard in one case and not important in the other. My supplementary is this: will the minister look into reports that Argentina, with which country we are negotiating the sale of a reactor or reactors, is giving consideration to supplying nuclear material to Libya? Having regard to the Libyan interest in nuclear weapons will the hon. gentleman look into this and advise the House what the government proposes to do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SOUTH VIET
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the policy statement issued by the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth concerning the possible recognition of the government of South Viet Nam on the one hand, and in view of the fact that the criteria established by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for such a recognition seem to have been fulfilled by the said government, that is the effective control of the country on the other hand, is the Canadian government considering the possibility of resuming shortly its diplomatic relations with South Viet Nam?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question and the government is studying it very carefully. For the time being, I cannot give the exact date when the minister will ask for the recognition of the government of South Viet Nam.


VIET NAM-POSSIBLE RECOGNITION OF NEW REGIME
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government of Canada use the opportunity afforded by the seminar on Asia now being held in Montreal at which visitors from South Viet Nam on PRG passports were admitted to Canada to exercise the goodwill of the government and hopefully arrange for recognition of that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. I believe the hon. gentleman is aware that the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways are terminating a long standing contract with the Canadian Steamships Line to move goods from eastern Canada to western Canada and I believe he has been in discussion with various representatives as to the terminating of the contract. I should like to ask the minister what state the negotiations have reached, or what conclusion the railways or the government have arrived at?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like some clarification before answering that question. Is the hon. member referring to the negotiations between CN, CP and Canada Steamships Line at Thunder Bay?


Jack Burnett Murta: Yes.


Jean Marchand: If so, I have asked CN and CP to resume negotiations with Canada Steamships Line so that the conditions that pre-existed will exist in the future.


Jack Burnett Murta: May I thank the minister for his answer and ask him whether he is aware that if the contract is discontinued the additional cost that will be borne by the receivers in western Canada will be quite substantial. In fact, for Manitoba alone we are talking in some cases in the neighbourhood of $160,000 to the receivers, so I hope that the minister will proceed along the lines of these negotiations and discussions.


Jean Marchand: Yes, I will do so.
5676

May 12, 1975
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is he aware of the fact that Canadian National is now negotiating to provide road transport to move goods from Newfoundland to other parts of Canada; and if this is so, would he explain how CN can provide this service in view of the deterioration of the Trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and the lack of upgrading programs for this service? Not only that, but this will deny CN rail workers in Newfoundland their right to work. Would the minister explain that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think as all hon. members are aware, the Minister of Transport will be before the committee of the whole for two days, today and tomorrow, and perhaps this question, which will require rather expansive discussion, should be deferred until that time.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CROWSNEST PASS RATES WILL NOT BE CHANGED
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice, reporting for the Wheat Board. It concerns the number of diverse and ambivalent statements made in western Canada, both by telegram to the premier of Saskatchewan from the Prime Minister and statements made by the minister himself with regard to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates.
In view of the ambiguity of those statements, may I ask the minister whether it is his intention to assure the House and the country that the Crowsnest Pass rates will not be changed, diminished or monkeyed with between now and the next election?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to repeat what in fact has been said in connection with the Crowsnest rates. Some little time ago, I did indicate at a meeting at Edmonton that there was some argument for a rate that better reflected real costs as between meat and grain in order to encourage the further processing of meat in Canada. I also indicated that that was in no way a proposal from the government but rather a matter that I was putting before the west as a matter of real interest to the west in so far as the further development of processing there is concerned. Some have since attempted to concern the farmers about this, because in my proposal I had indicated that it would have been my idea to maintain the benefits of the Crowsnest rates by transferring this sort of payment or assistance to the farmers more directly in some other fashion.
In order to ensure that there is no doubt at all in anybody's mind or no fear in anybody's mind about anything that this government is doing with regard to agriculture, I indicated that in my view the test whether such a change could be made was really dependent upon the will
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]
of the farmers themselves. I presume that the right hon. gentleman has his own conclusions about what that would mean at the present time. The fact of the matter is that it is above all clear that what the government is trying to do is to assure the best possible handling and transportation system that money can buy, the best possible income for the farmers, and the maximum number of farmers on our farms in the prairie provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the minister that the ambivalence has certainly been increased by that so-called statement. Let me ask him, why does he not say that there would be no interference or monkeying with the Crowsnest agreement rates? Why does he not say that simply and clearly, instead of a multitude of words chasing an idea that turns out to be as uncertain as the course of the government has been in this connection for months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. gentleman re-reads my statement he will understand that this government is always open to new ways to help the farmers even more. That is the only qualification that I make to the flat statement that, as far as I am concerned, the Crowsnest Pass rates are here to stay.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Knowing the embarrassment of the minister and the government regarding this matter, may I ask the minister simply: Can he not give the assurance that there will be no interference with the charter of the western farmers in so far as freight rates are concerned, instead of circumlocuting the whole problem and failing to give an answer, which failure indicates that a change is ahead?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that any answer could have been much clearer than the one I gave a moment ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I would point out to the right hon. gentleman that many people in the west are convinced of the fact that inequity in freight rates between meat and grain is a serious disadvantage to the west. Therefore, this leads to further questions and considerations.
I point out to the right hon. gentleman that in any statements that I have made which have been in relation to my own proposals and ideas, the notion of preserving the benefits to the west and the prairies of the Crowsnest rates has been foremost. I should like to ask him how anyone in any way can reasonably suggest that there can be any harm to anybody if these benefits are preserved and a better way is found to deliver to the farmers, so that more farmers in fact have a better income on the prairies.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a little unusual for a minister of the government to ask a question of a private member, but since the minister has done so I will answer it. I would not monkey with the Crowsnest Pass agreement as the government is intending to do.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is also obvious that during his time as Prime Minister the right hon. gentleman did not

May 12, 1975
monkey very much with the freight rates, or with all the inequities in them either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, it is reported in the toughest speech of his political career, has stated that Canadians who refuse to co-operate with the government's voluntary restraint program are forcing him to take harsh economic action. In his own words, it is "restraint or else".
In view of the fact that Canadians are looking for leadership in this area, would the Prime Minister say specifically what steps the government has taken to show restraint, particularly in government expenditures, which might be used as an example to all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would take a very long statement from me to indicate that.


George Harris Hees: You could do it in 15 seconds and say nothing.


Mr. Stevens:: Name one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Very well, I will name one. There is, for instance, the action we took on the Veterans' Land Act, which the opposition refused to support every time we brought it forth.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government's original estimates for 1975-76 spending were 28 per cent higher than last year's original estimates, and in view of the fact that government policy and its own spending is the principal cause of inflation, would the Prime Minister say whether the problems Canada is facing today were unforeseen to him and his government at the time these recent huge increases in government spending were projected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premises. I think they are both false, therefore I cannot agree with the conclusion.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of multiculturalism, but in view of his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. On March 3, 1975,
Oral Questions
the minister stated that the report by the Canadian Consultative Council on multiculturalism would be released in the near future. Will the Prime Minister ask that minister to indicate to the House when this report will be published and whether he intends to table it in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister is presently meeting with the CLC in Toronto.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What has that to do with multiculturalism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would gladly refer the question to him, Mr. Speaker.


SYNCRUDE-APPOINTMENT OF BRUCE WILSON TO LOOK AFTER GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST-POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question regarding a report that Mr. Bruce Wilson has been appointed for an indefinite period to look after the government's investment in Syncrude. Is this a temporary appointment until the National Petroleum Corporation takes over this responsibility, or is Mr. Wilson to continue this function when PetroCan is set up and is responsible for the federal government's investment in Syncrude?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government's intention in appointing Mr. Wilson, who is now a consultant in this field, was to provide for an experienced executive on an interim basis to look after the government's interest in Syncrude. I regret to say that late last week Mr. Wilson underwent very serious surgery, and it looks very much as though he will not be able to continue in this function, in which case we will have to seek some other assistance on an interim basis until parliament has given us the authority to go ahead with Petro-Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Wilson, whose indisposition we all regret, was a former president of Canadian Bechtel Limited, a former vice-president of the Bechtel Corporation in the United States, and with Canadian Bechtel Limited as chief contractor in the Syncrude project, will the minister assure us that Mr. Wilson is not going to be the government watchdog in a situation in which he has formerly had a very deep vested interest? It seems to me this would be very much like putting a weasel in the henhouse in order to protect the chickens.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. gentleman made a few inquiries in the trade he would find that the relationship between Mr. Wilson and Canadian Bechtel is such that there would be very little love lost between the two of them.
29561 -16j/2

May 12, 1975
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
For exactly 12 years the government of Quebec has been promising the establishment of a pulp and paper mill in Saint-Felicien in the riding of Roberval. Can the Minister tell the House whether a grant to the Donohue Company has been formally applied for, through the Quebec government, for the building of such a plant?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, up to the present time except in very rare circumstances, such as those that existed in one location in Quebec a year or so ago, it has not been the policy of my department to invest or become involved in new pulp and paper enterprises as such. However, there is a supplementary agreement in place between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec relating to the forest industry in general, and it is possible that some form of aid might be available under that kind of program. I will make some inquiries and advise the hon. member.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary.
Would the minister check at the same time whether it is true, as the rumour has it in Quebec, that the federal government is delaying the project?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will certainly check on that, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge such delay is not the case, but I will refrain from being specific on that until I have had a chance to check.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Good luck.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the depressed state of the mortgage market, can the Prime Minister explain why his government continues to procrastinate about setting up the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation which was legislated over a year and a half ago to provide a secondary mortgage market that would undoubtedly help attract mortgage investments into residential mortgages at this critical time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire as to what the nature of the difficulties are, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has received any objections from the Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian Cancer Society, or from the Canadian Cancer Society itself, regarding the re-showing next Sunday by the CBC of a program entitled "Encounter with Cancer"?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes I
have, Mr. Speaker. As I said last week, I made those representations known to the corporation, but I believe the corporation still intends to show it and has a defence of its decision. I will be pleased to table it in the House tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a scandalous thing.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he has advised the CBC that it should seek advice as to whether the point of view put forward in programs of this sort are valid and agree with the policy of the Department of National Health and Welfare and such concerned bodies as the Canadian Cancer Society?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, without giving them my advice, I have been assured that they have in fact followed that course, and they do so traditionally.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is another in a series I have posed regarding lay-offs at the Sysco plant in Sydney, the possibility of aid from his department and so on. In my last question I asked if there had been a commitment that there would be no further lay-offs at the Sysco plant. The minister very kindly said he would seek that assurance. Is he in a position today to advise whether he received that assurance and what the future holds?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, no such assurances were volunteered by the company when its official visited my department to discuss this question. The outlook for the company continues, of course, to be somewhat uncertain because of a slowdown within the industry and, indeed, on a world basis. I would suggest to the hon. member that he might like to put the same question to the Premier of Nova
May 12, 1975____ COMMONS DEBATES
Scotia, in view of the fact the government of Nova Scotia owns and controls the plant.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister might have better liaison with the Premier of Nova Scotia than I do, I wonder if he might impress upon him that at the moment we have unemployment running at the rate of 15 per cent to 20 per cent on Cape Breton Island and we just cannot stand anymore? I would hope that the minister and his government along with the Prime Minister would impress that fact upon the Premier of Nova Scotia.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has difficulty getting through to the Premier of Nova Scotia, I would be very pleased to convey that message.


Robert Muir: I will expect an answer, too.


REQUEST FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF $500 MILLION LOAN TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would indicate if it is intended to inform the House of the terms and conditions of the recently announced $500 million loan to the U.S.S.R.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which I believe was or should be addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to another member, so I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat his question.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether it is the intention of the minister to outline the terms and conditions of the $500 million loan to the U.S.S.R. announced last week?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is the largest foreign credit which the Export Development Corporation has extended to a foreign power. It is to run for a period of 30 months and it requires that within the first 18 months approximately $250 million be committed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was quite valid in that it asked whether the minister intended at some time to inform the House about the terms and conditions of the loan. He seems to be prepared to do so, but it certainly is not the time for that now.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister tell us whether or not it would be classified as a soft loan?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, it is fully competitive with international rates.
Oral Questions FINANCE


INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF BUDGET
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is with regard to the date of the budget. Can the right hon. gentleman advise the House whether he is sufficiently in the confidence of the Minister of Finance to be able to advise the House if the minister will be in the House tomorrow to announce June 2 as the date of the budget so that the country will know when they can look forward to some form of relief and help?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that Van Horne moved a division of troops from Ottawa to Winnipeg in 1885 in less than 10 days when three major sections of the railroad were as yet incomplete, does the Postmaster General approve of the fact that it now takes 18 days for bulk mail leaving central Ontario to arrive at Camrose, Alberta? Moreover, does he approve of his special assistant writing to constituents telling them if they do not like the bulk rate service they had better switch to first class mail?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am no more happy about the fact that Van Horne could move faster than we do today than I am about the fact that our first Canadians had a better service by smoke signals than we have at times.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the length of time the Westbank Indians have been waiting for approval of the development of their land and as the minister has said he will sign the necessary head lease document, can he say now when he will sign it?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern at the length of time taken to get these documents straightened away. However, I am happy to report that the head lease was signed on May 8 of this year.

May 12, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


FERTILIZER-JUSTIFICATION OF PRICE INCREASES
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It is with reference to the fertilizer situation and concerns price rather than supply. From answers to earlier questions and from discussions with dealers, it would appear that short supply is not really a problem in general, but I wish to ask the minister whether he is satisfied that the recent price increases are in fact justified and, if not, what action, if any, he intends to take.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member has any new information on price increases, but the latest figures I was given last week showed some price decline in some brands of the fertilizer.


FISHERIES
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Following the minister's announcement of a $50 million program to assist the ground fish industry of Canada, can the minister advise the House whether consideration has been given to a similar program to assist the fresh water and inland fishermen of Canada?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, some days after this announcement was made further details were released to the effect that we would be assisting the fishermen with deficiency payments for mullet and lower qualities of white fish which are filleted. We are watching the freshwater fish situation very closely in terms of marketing. I should say that prices to fishermen will thus keep up pretty well with the trend in the past years which was fairly good.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the interest shown by the government in beefing up the security procedures at Vancouver International airport following my question in the House last month, can the minister tell us why the government seems to feel that some passengers are not entitled to security protection since passengers boarding jet liners at some British Columbia airports, such as Prince George, are not required to submit to any security checks whatever?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire into this matter.


EDUCATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. When contracting educational institutions for information and guidance concerning social programming, has the minister changed his policy by limiting inquiries to universities, thereby bypassing community colleges?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question. Perhaps I can talk to the hon. member after the question period.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It arises from the fact that apparently he has placed Michael Pitfield beyond the control of questioning by a parliamentary committee. I would like to ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made reference to this question a couple of times in the last two sittings. Surely, the proper place to question officials about who appears or who does not appear before the committee is the standing committee and not the House. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for External Affairs. Considering that the province of Quebec is the only province which occupies federal office space abroad, can the minister explain to the House what cost sharing arrangement has been made between the two levels of government in order to provide this interesting method of recruiting Canadian immigrants, particularly at a time when the parliamentary inquiry into the whole matter of immigration is underway?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, let me answer as Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some time ago an agreement was signed between the province of Quebec and Canada in connection with co-operative action be-
May 12, 1975

tween the two governments to improve the flow of immigration and the way in which immigrants are met and dealt with as they approach this country. I will be glad to obtain for the hon. member exact details with regard to the cost, which is a rather complicated matter.


Donald W. Munro: Can the minister say whether these facilities will be extended to all provincial governments on request?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The special initiative which the province of Quebec showed prior to the 1971 agreement would certainly be responded to by us in the same way with regard to other provinces.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Premier of Quebec discussed with the right hon. Prime Minister, in preparation for the nationalization and repatriation of the constitution, his assertion that certain fields, such as communication and immigration, be given to Quebec in order to assert what he calls cultural sovereignty in economic federalism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement in the paper like every one else.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it government policy that oil companies which have had applications for permits in the Northwest Territories pending in his department for the past four or five years, companies which have done substantial exploration work on such lands, will be denied priority in acquiring permits on those lands?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, this problem has been outstanding for the last four or five years. It is the question of oil and gas regulations on which we have not yet brought appropriate legislation to the House and the matter raised will be covered at that time.


DATE OF ISSUANCE OF OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the speech delivered by the minister in Calgary, to which I listened carefully, and the uncertainty of his
Oral Questions
answer today, can he advise when those regulations will be produced, what legislation will be brought forward and when?


J. Judd Buchanan: As I indicated in my speech, it is my hope that it will be in the early part of the fall.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to reply to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If the only example he can find of the government practising restraint in spending is the phase-out of the Veterans Land Act, I say that it not only is a slight to the veterans of Canada, but if that is the only example of restraint then God help Canada!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have a valid complaint that is a subject of debate, discussion or commentary at some time, but it surely does not constitute a question of privilege or a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the question I attempted to ask a few moments ago with regard to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had refused to allow Michael Pitfield to be questioned by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
I rise primarily to seek direction from the Chair as to where a member can raise a matter of this kind. We are not, apparently, allowed to raise it in committee because the gentleman in question is not there. As a member, I raise a very legitimate question as to why the top public servant in Canada is being hidden from parliamentary examination and, indirectly or directly, the expenses of the offices of the Prime Minister and of the Privy Council, because we cannot talk to this deputy minister like we can all other deputy ministers. I feel that I have a very legitimate point of order in seeking direction as to how this matter can be brought to the attention of parliament and the people of Canada for proper examination of the very lavish and luxurious expenses being indulged in for the offices of the Prime Minister and of the Privy Council and the residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive without proper examination by parliament.
I feel that parliament has every right to examine this matter, but for one reason or another the Prime Minister seeks to block the right of parliament to know why he is spending public money on certain things. I should like to receive some direction as to where, as a private member of this House, I can raise these very legitimate questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated when the hon. member raised the question, surely when the estimates of the Prime Minister's office or the Privy Council are before the standing committee-which I understand will be later this day-questions of that sort can be raised. Questions concerning all those items can be directed to whichever member of parliament is there in his representative capacity or responsible capacity, either a minister or a parliamentary secretary, because it is the responsibility of

May 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions
the minister and he assumes that responsibility to answer such questions.
If there is a refusal to answer those questions in the committee, on examination of the estimates, that refusal may warrant consideration at a later time in the form of a complaint or grievance, or perhaps a question of privilege; I do not know. The fact of the matter is that until such time as a representative member of the government refuses to attend or refuses to answer questions in respect of the estimates, up to that point surely no questions can be put in this House about those matters.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Regional Development, in both official languages-Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke).
[Editor's note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, the final communique of the recent meetings of Commonwealth heads of government in Kingston, Jamaica.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,573, 1,935, 1,940, 1,949, 1,962, 1,973, 1,975, 1,976, 2,202 and 2,221.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 554 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Part 1 of Question No. 251 was it stated in a letter dated May 1, 1974 for the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that "for a number of years an educational campaign has been conducted, aimed at reducing or eliminating age discrimination in employment"?
2.	With reference to the answer to Part 2 is it known that age discrimination is practiced by a requirement that new employees participate in compulsory company pension plans which have maximum age limits for new entrants?
3.	(a) Is the responsibility for these pension plans mainly in a provincial jurisdiction (b) what means are available to the government to deal with this situation?
4.	Is age discrimination often practiced through the requirement of compulsory participation for new employees in medical plans where high standards are maintained for the purpose of cost saving to the companies?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Labour as follows: 1. Yes. Although no formal campaign has been conducted recently, the department, through its Canada Manpower Centres, continues a campaign to persuade employers to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including age.
2.	Some compulsory company pension plans contain maximum age limits for new entrants.
3.	(a) Age limits for new entrants are found in pension plans under both federal and provincial jurisdictions. Information is not available on the distribution of these plans between provincial and federal jurisdictions, (b) The governments of Canada and some provinces are developing amendments to their labour codes which would remove discrimination based on age, sex and marital status from pension and insurance plans.
4.	Information not available.


Mr. Reynolds: Were four Toyota Land Cruise Station Wagons purchased by Department of Supply and Services to be used for broadcasting purposes in Tanzania at a cost of approximately $60,000 each and, if so, what is the reason for the cost?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: A contract was placed on behalf of CIDA on October 18, 1973, for four Toyota Land Cruiser Station Wagons at a cost of $4,901 each, and a range of operating and maintenance spares valued at $5,356.92 for a total cost of $24,960.92 for vehicles and spare parts. In addition, supply, fitment and testing of broadcasting or recording equipment, complete with spares and instruction manuals as well as base-station equipment and spares, was contracted for separately at $268,000.
May 12, 1975


Mr. Reynolds: Did the Department of Supply and Services award a contract valued at $303,314 to Atlas Steels Company, a division of Rio Algom Mines Limited, Welland, Ontario, for the modification of one of the company's electric furnaces and, if so, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes. This contract was awarded for the development of new technology to smelt iron oxide pellets using significantly reduced amounts of electrical energy. The objective is to make the results available to all Canadian stell manufacturers and reduce Canada's dependence on imports of ferrous scrap. The requisitioning agency is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Reynolds: Was a contract issued for the design, development and supply of two handheld aerial cameras for $150 thousand approximately and, if so, was any consideration given to similar cameras available on the market at a fraction of the price?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes. All potential suppliers were made aware of this pending procurement and the minimum performance requirements of the Department of National Defence. The enquiry specified existing equipment but none was offered and only Ernst Leitz (Canada) Ltd. offered to develop and supply the complete camera.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were two separate contracts issued to Imperial Oil Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario and Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario on April 2, 1974 and, if so, what was the rate charged by each per gallon?
2.	For what reason were both contracts not negotiated at the same time with the Gulf Oil Company?
3.	Does such purchase indicate coordination of the purchasing aim affecting such fuels?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A contract dated March 14, 1974 was awarded to Imperial Oil Limited, Ottawa, and contracts dated March 13 and 14, 1974 were awarded to Gulf Oil Canada Limited, Toronto, for the supply of turbine fuel to Canadian Forces Bases in western Canada and the maritimes as required during the period June 1, 1974 to May 31, 1975. The news releases covering these awards were dated April 2, 1975. The price per gallon depended on the specification of the fuel, quantity, source, delivery point and method of delivery. The price per gallon varied from $0.2201 to $0.4826.
2.	Gulf Oil Canada Limited did not submit bids for supply of fuel to ten of the 13 bases.
3.	Yes. The annual DND requirement for aviation turbine fuel was consolidated into invitations to tender by geographical areas. In this instance, one invitation to tender was for Canadian Forces Bases in eastern Canada and the other western Canada bases. Six firms were invited to tender for the eastern requirement but only Gulf Canada and Imperial Oil submitted bids. Gulf Canada was
Order Paper Questions
the sole bidder for the supply of fuel to bulk storage for one base, while Imperial Oil was the sole bidder for the remaining five bases. Contracts were awarded accordingly. Seven firms were invited to tender for the supply of turbine fuel to seven sites in western Canada. Only Gulf Canada and Imperial Oil submitted bids for two locations, of which Gulf was the lower bidder and was awarded the contract. Imperial Oil was the sole bidder for the remaining five locations and was awarded the contract.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the details of two contracts awarded June 27, 1974 to Heroux Ltd, Longueuil, Quebec for the repair and overhaul of miscellaneous hydraulic material?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Contract 1: To cover the cost of servicing forecasted repair and overhaul hydraulic DND requirements during the fiscal period April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975. Contract 2: To cover the cost of accountable advance spares ordered during the period April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975 for use in contracts 1 and follow-on contracts.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded May 16, 1974 to I.M.P. Aerospace Ltd., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for aircraft reparations costing $413,000?
2.	Under the terms of the contract, what does "sampling inspection" of one C.P. 121 aircraft mean?
3.	To what degree were the four C.P. 121 Tracker aircraft overhauled?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	The contract item "sampling inspection" is an in-depth inspection of an aircraft at a pre-determined number of flying hours to provide maintenance data from which management determines the level of overhaul to be carried out on the aircraft fleet until the next sampling inspection is performed.
3.	The work performed on the four C.P. 121 aircraft involved dismantling for inspection, and repairing as found necessary, specific areas and systems of the aircraft (selected through previous sampling inspections) using techniques and facilities available only at the designated overhaul depot.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded June 25, 1974 to the New Brunswick Telephone Company, Saint John, New Brunswick for the rental of tariff equipment for a period extending from April 1, 1974 to March 31,
1975?
2.	Was there a delay of three months in awarding the contract after operation was underway and, if so, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes, a contract was issued on May 23, 1974. The news release was dated June 25, 1974.

May 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2. The contract covers the ongoing rental of services initially provided in prior years. There was an approximate eight week delay between the expiry on March 31, 1974 of the similar contract covering fiscal 1973-74 and the insuance of this renewal contract. The delay was primarily due to the heavy contract renewal workload which arises each year in March and April as a result of the government fiscal year end on March 31.


Mr. Firth: 1.	Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development . presently negotiating with individual Indian bands to settle land
claims in treaty and non-treaty areas and, if so, with which bands?
2.	Is it the Department's intention to extinguish Native peoples' rights and Native title to lands through land claims settlements?
3.	(a) What amount of money is transferred to provincial governments for providing education to Native people (b) which provinces are party to such agreements (c) how much was received by each such province in the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Preliminary discussions or negotiations concerning comprehensive land claims arising in areas where it is alleged that native title has not been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law are being carried out with the Union of British Columbia Indian chiefs, the Nishga Tribal Council, the Kitwancool Indians, the Haida Indians, the Council for Yukon Indians and the Crees and Inuits of northern Quebec. Preliminary discussions or negotiations concerning claims relating to the administration of land and other Indian assets under the Indian Act and to the fulfilment and interpretation of Indian treaties are being carried out with the Enoch Band, Stony Band, Edmunston Band, Sydney Band, Union of Nova Scotia Indians and Wagnatcook Band. The department is also negotiating with some bands which have outstanding entitlement to land under treaties. Active negotiations have been going on with the Garden Hill, Red Sucker Lake, St. Theresa's Point and Wasagamack Bands in Manitoba, with the Peter Ballantyne, Fond du lac and Stoney Rapids Bands in Saskatchewan and the Cree Band of Fort Chi-pewyan in Alberta.
2. In comprehensive land claims it is the intention that native title would be extinguished in return for the compensation that may be agreed upon in negotiations or in any settlement legislation that might be applicable.
3.	1970-71*	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75000's	000's	000's	000's	000's$	$	$	$	$Maritimes	87	-	-	232Quebec	332	260	114	-Ontario	803	771	409	253Manitoba	2,788	1,484	1,403	506Saskatchewan	392	584	561	115Alberta	348	652	1,006	5911970-71*	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75000's	000's	000's	000's	000's$	s	$	$	sBritish Columbia	630	1,026	400	2038,836	5,380	4,777	3,893	1,900Not available by province	for fiscal year 1970-71


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since the signing of the umbrella agreement relating to development on March 15, 1975 by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister responsible for the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau, to date (a) how many projects have been submitted (b) how many were accepted (i) in what localities (ii) in what amount?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The General Development Agreement, signed in March 1974, between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the government of Quebec permits the conclusion of subsidiary agreements negotiated on a sectorial development basis. The projects which could be included in such a subsidiary agreement are not all presented directly to DREE, but often to the provincial ministry concerned or to the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau. We do not, therefore, have at out disposal the list of all the projects submitted at any given time. Taking into account the development priorities of each industrial sector in the various regions of Quebec and the objectives defined in the General Development Agreement, a list of projects is drawn up and becomes the starting point of negotiations aimed at the conclusion of a subsidiary agreement. The subsidiary agreements signed to date between Quebec and Canada are as follows: 1. March 15, 1974- Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on the Financing of the 1974-1978 SIDBEC Expansion Plan. Place: Contreco-eur, Quebec. Grand Total: $181,000,000. Breakdown of expenditures: Canada: $30,000,000; Quebec: $151,000,000.
2.	September 13,	1974-Canada-Quebec Subsidiary
Agreement on Key Highway Networks (construction of the steel route, Autoroute A-30, between Montreal and Sorel). Grand Total: $43,435,000. Breakdown of expenditures: Canada: $26,265,000 Quebec: $17,170,000.
3.	March 26, 1975-Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Industrial Infrastructure. This agreement is divided into three groups: a) Industrial parks: Haut-Saguenay, $3,600,000; Sherbrooke, $13,400,000; St-Romuald, $1,100,000; Drummondville, $5,000,000; Victoriaville, $2,000,000; Rimouski, $2,200,000; Riviere-du-Loup, $1,200,000; Rouyn-Noranda, $1,000,000; Total $29,500,000; b) Fishery parks: Paspebiae Cap-aux-Meules; Riviere-au-Renard; Grande-Riviere; Norht Shore; Total $14,000,000; c) Important industrial projects (sites to be determined), $12,000,000; Reserve, $4,500,000; Total: $16,500,000; Grand Total: $60,000,000; Breakdown of expenditures: Canada: $36,000,000; Quebec: $24,000,000.
4.	March 26, 1975-Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Access to Forest Resources, a) Saguenay/Lac-St-Jean/Chibougamau: Chapais, Frotet Lake and Waconichi

May 12, 1975

Lake; Bras du Nord, Bourgat Lake, Margonne Lake, Total $5,812,000; b) Northwestern Quebec; Quevillon-Matagami, Canica Island, Valet Lake, Ponteneau Township, Mazarin, Villebois and Bourque Townships, Claire and Lanoue Townships, Val d'Or-Laforce, Alfred Lake-Rapide Sept and Temiscamingue, Waswanipi Lake and Kokomis Lake Total; $12,703,000; c) North Shore; Sacre-Coeur, Outardes Crown forest' Du Tonnerre and St-Jean Rivers; Natashq-uan, Labrieville; total: $5,685,000; Grand total: $24,200,000; Breakdown of expenditures: Canada $14,520,000: Quebec: $9,680,000.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Symes: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that there have been discussions about proceedings in the committee. This matter will be dealt with by the Chairman as soon as the committee session begins. Pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of the whole to consider certain items of the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders 58 and 59 Mr. Penner 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.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as a result of our experience on Friday, when there was some confusion, there have been discussions through the usual channels and I should like to make some suggestions. I think I speak on behalf of the House leaders of the various parties with regard to our proceedings today and tomorrow. It is suggested that the
Business of Supply
Minister of Transport will not make a statement at the opening of the proceedings but that at 9.15 p.m. tomorrow he will be recognized for a 15 minute statement in summing up. A member of the opposition will then be recognized to conclude the two-day debate before the remaining votes are taken.
The minister's time in replying to questions is not to be counted as time taken by Liberal backbenchers; but on the other hand, speaking for this side of the House, we will not claim that Liberal backbenchers should have exactly the same time as all the opposition parties put together. Discussion, I suggest, should be divided into 15 minute units. A member may speak for ten minutes in developing questions, and the minister would have five minutes to respond or, alternatively, the minister and the member may engage in a 15 minute direct question and answer period. Of course, if a member so desires and does not expect or want a ministerial response, he may merely make a speech for that 15 minute period. Once a member of any party has used the 15 minute period, he will not be recognized again unless there are no other members of his party wishing to participate at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has correctly stated the understanding we have reached. There will still be problems which Your Honour may have to contend with, but may I say in one or two sentences that have attempted to marry the old committee of supply to the other system under which we have been operating. Whether the result of that marriage will be a bastard or a child of some consequence, I do not know as yet; but it is going to throw some burden upon the Chair.
I just wish to make the point that in the old days committee of supply was all carried out on government time and ministers were in the position of having to be exceedingly nice to members of the opposition in order to get their estimates through. Unfortunately, those days are gone forever and they do not have to be nice to us any more-although I hope the Minister of Transport will be.
We are looking at a series of miniature, 15-minute capsule debates on certain issues and it is hoped that it will be realized that opposition days are being given up for this purpose. While I agree completely with the President of the Privy Council that government members who feel courageous enough, or have some issue to take up with the government, should have the right to do so, I hope that recognizing them will not mean that they will simply be here to take time away from the opposition.
Those are the points I wished to make. This experiment could be very successful and could bring us a long distance in recovering the ground we lost some years ago. I hope the Chair will take these things into consideration when deciding who is to be recognized and under what conditions.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council has stated the terms of the agreement reached this morning among the House leaders. I do have one qualification that I will come to in a moment, Mr. Chairman, but it is not serious. I should like to make the point that we agreed this morning to try this procedure for these two days on the estimates of the Department of Transport, without committing ourselves to

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
what we may do in the future. In other words, what we are trying to do is find a method that will work to the satisfaction of the committee in general. We are prepared to do our best to make this system work today and tomorrow and then decide where we will go from there.
There was one point in the statement of the President of the Privy Council that seemed to me to vary slightly from what we agreed to this morning. He said that if a member chooses to speak the full 15 minutes without putting any questions, he may do so. I think there was some concern this morning that a member might speak the full 15 minutes and not ask any questions, but make the kind of attack on the minister that would make him feel he should reply. Maybe we can cope with that if we come to it, but in any case the consensus was that we work on the basis of 15-minute units. We are prepared to try to make this plan work.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I would really want to feel confident about the new suggestion put forward by the President of the Privy Council for a two day experience. Does such an agreement provide that the spokesmen of the various opposition parties in the House will have the opportunity to talk in turn or if this is left to the discretion of the Chair? I would want to receive such an assurance before we start our proceedings.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to see that there was further consideration of this matter. I was one of the members on this side of the House on Friday who was unhappy with the procedure. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling seems to be absolutely in line with what has been suggested today. Unfortunately, as time goes by in a day, different Chairmen chair the committee who do not know what went on previously and a misunderstanding develops. I would hope that if a member speaks for, say, five minutes and then puts questions, provided there is time left in his or her allotted time the minister will answer the questions if he can, or at least take them as notice, and do so right after the member has spoken.
I appreciate that we are all members of parliament and as such are responsible for curbing expenditures. The point that is being made by House leaders today is a good one, in that this is a unique responsibility of the opposition. We are trying to pry information out of the government. I have sat on the back benches of the government and I know that sometimes it is of benefit to the government to hide information. I think that ought to be taken into consideration in these procedures.
There is one further point that I should like to leave with you, Mr. Chairman, and I am afraid I disagree with my House leader on this. I hope that when we bring back the estimates into the House in this fashion, we will have not only the same privilege that we had in the past but the power that we had at that time. In the past we would tell a minister that the estimates would not pass until we got the information. All they do now is put up their collars and let the blizzard blow; when the blizzard is over, we

have no information. That is what we complained about on Friday.
I want to say, sir-I know I am not supposed to mention your ruling-that you were most fair and just under all the circumstances on Friday.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this ruling, understanding or agreement among the parties takes into consideration the rights of members of parliament who are not members of parties?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may answer, and the reason I do so will be apparent in a moment. This morning we discussed the position of the hon. member for Moncton and I agreed to speak to him. I have been looking for him, but he was not in his place until a few moments ago. His position was certainly considered, however, and I am sure it will be protected by the Chair.


The Chairman:: The committee has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed that today and tomorrow this will be the procedure adopted by the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, in starting this two-day debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport, I hope we will be able to deal with questions at the time they are asked. I think this is far more pertinent and more helpful to the committee and to the member involved.
I should like to begin by saying that in the time this government has been in office, since 1972, the Department of Transport has not shown much in the way of results, in light of the election promises made at that time. When we look at the estimates we see a sizeable increase in all areas of expenditure of the department. I am going to deal with vote A, but before I do I should like to outline some of the election promises and try to show that almost none has been implemented. I think this is important in view of the fact that this House is going to be voting a large amount of money to the department.
In May, 1974, the Prime Minister stated that Air Canada was going to build major new facilities in Winnipeg at an estimated cost of $12 million, which would create 800 new jobs. The Prime Minister also said that Air Canada would discuss with the western provinces the establishment of a regional network of air services to serve small and isolated communities and create more employment. Another promise was for a STOL service to link Winnipeg, Brandon, Dauphin, Yorkton and Saskatoon.
On June 12, in Edmonton, the Prime Minister announced that if elected, his government would revise freight rates, set up a Crown corporation to supply boxcars, and improve the ports of Prince Rupert and Vancouver. That is another election promise that has not been carried out.
On June 17, in Toronto, the Prime Minister announced a $270 million program to aid public transit. To my knowledge, the government has not yet come up with anything positive on that program. The Prime Minister said on that occasion that a Liberal government would pay 100 per cent
May 12, 1975

of the cost of Canadian-made commuter vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of platforms and stations. I could go on and on about the various promises made at that time, Mr. Chairman, but I am only trying to set the stage. In this debate we hope the minister will give the House of Commons the fullest information on the programs of the Department of Transport and the direction it will be taking in the future.
My first question to the minister concerns the headquarters of the department. According to the estimates, in the period 1975-76 over 1974-75 there is a 39 per cent increase in expenditures, which I feel is scandalous. I note that with respect to the 16.1 per cent increase in authorized man-years in 1974-75, part of the increase is attributed to improvements in public relations. Again, in 1975-76 a further 12.7 per cent increase in man-years authorized is to meet the growing demand for support in public relations. The information budget has increased from an actual expenditure of $48,000 in 1973-74 to an expenditure of some $1,687,000 in 1975-76. My question to the minister is this: From whom is there a growing demand for support in public relations? From where is that demand coming? Is it coming from the people of Canada? Apparently it takes 35 times more money to tell people this year that transportation is in a mess than it did two years ago. I ask the minister to explain the departmental figures concerning public relations.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I will not answer all the statements which have been made, many of which are strictly political. The department has accomplished many things, and I will have the opportunity before this debate ends to tell the committee what the department has done in the west, with the agreement of the ministers of transport of the western provinces. I cannot ask the hon. gentleman to talk about Prince Rupert and the kind of agreement that we made with British Columbia about the development of northern B.C., about the development of Churchill or about the agreement reached with Manitoba, the maritimes, and so on. I will not take up the time of the committee with these matters; I know the hon. gentleman wants to gain some political credits in being strictly critical. This is what he is supposed to do and I am not going to interfere with that.
Of course, the total amount set aside for employees has increased considerably. We must take into account the training centre to be established in Cornwall, which will cost about $8 million. In addition, we must consider the new policy we are elaborating. I hope this will be ready soon. If the hon. gentleman scrutinizes the department's work objectively, he will agree that the number of hours spent in formulating the new policy justifies the differentials he alluded to. I do not know how much time I am to be allowed for answering.


George H. Whittaker: The Chairman will tell you, never fear.


Jean Marchand: I do not intend to let the
hon. member speak and then not answer him. I am not like that. The man-years allotment for the transportation task force has been increased by about 101 man-years. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of
Business of Supply
employees in the minister's and the deputy minister's offices. The number of people employed in the information bureau-I think that is the right term-has been increased. In addition, there is an increase of 15 persons employed in the public affairs part of the department.
There are increases in the transport training institute, in those connected with the bilingualism program, in the computer service, in administration and in the general category. One must also include the central registry, the financial service, financial planning, operational revenue, material management, micrographics, and so on. In these areas you will find increases in man-years allowed. These employees are not political creatures; they are civil servants working for the government.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the percentage of increase indicates any political hanky-panky; nevertheless, I think the figures justify our asking where the Canadian taxpayers' money is being spent. I suggest that we shall resolve the political aspect tomorrow night after 9.45 p.m. The minister suggested that the new policy will come forward soon. Can he be more specific? I understand that it has to do with modes of transportation involving roads, water, and so on. Can he say specifically when this new policy will be made known? Also, will he assure the committee that when the new policy is made known or comes forward, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will be able to review it before it is actually put into operation? I think the minister said this would be done.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised an important question. I remember the promise I made last year that I would discuss this policy with the standing committee of the House, and I intend to do so. First, I must have the approval of my colleagues. This is a government matter and I will discuss it in the near future with my colleagues. As soon as I have cabinet approval, I will be happy to discuss all aspects of transportation policy with the standing committee.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister another question? Another part of the 16.1 per cent increase in authorized man-years in 1974-75 is attributed to improvements in transportation policy. In 1975-76, part of 27 additional man-years is to be allocated, according to the explanation, to strengthening or developing the planning policy development functions: that is the way the matter is described. My question is this: What results has this increase produced so far? Also, if the policy development and planning development functions have been as heavily strengthened as is apparent from the estimates, why has the budget for professional and special services increased by 332 per cent since 1972-73? I suggest that the allocation in the 1972-73 budget was in the neighbourhood of $613,000; in the 1975-76 budget the amount allowed is in the neighbourhood of $2,652,000. Can the minister answer my question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the hon. member's first question and to get the figures from those who help me in order to answer the second question. I do not carry these figures in my head. To answer the hon. member's first question, let me tell

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
him that the elaboration of the new policy was hard work. We established an important task force composed of people who know something about transportation. Of course, when I talk about policy I am talking about the general philosophy of transportation in Canada.
That policy must be acted on; we must do something concrete. It is not good enough to say that transportation in Canada should be an instrument of national development; to say we agree. But what do you mean by that? Who will have to work on programs and who will have to work on projects? We know that this task force will keep on for the rest of the year, and probably in 1976 in order that we will not only have a policy but programs and projects which correspond to this philosophy.
With regard to the other point, if the hon. member will wait a second, I will try to find out the information. I am told it has to do with the Cornwall institute. They have divided the cost of the building with the cost of the professional fees which are paid to architects, engineers, designers, and so on; that is the explanation for that amount.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Chairman-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Under the terms of the arrangement agreed to, the time of the hon. member for Lisgar has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to use the time allotted to me at this juncture to put questions to the minister on three different subjects. They are not related to each other, so I will put one question, get the minister's answer, move on to the second, and so on.
As the minister will recall, during May and June of 1974-I will not say what was going on then because I do not want this to be that kind of a question-a good deal was said about urban renewal. The things that were being said under that heading included relocation of railway tracks in some or our cities and the development of new methods of transportation in our urban areas. Can the minister tell us what has happened, or what is happening to plans or projects that were in mind when those statements were made to the Canadian people in May and June of last year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, transportation in urban areas is outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, we offered to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in order to improve the transportation systems in large and medium sized cities. We cannot act on our own initiative; we had to meet with the provinces. We did that in order to determine how the problems could be solved.
I met with representatives of the British Columbia government and representatives of the city of Vancouver to see how we should proceed with regard to a better urban transportation system. This was also done in Winnipeg, Toronto and Quebec. We are now working with the provinces and the municipalities. This must necessarily be done by co-operation: we cannot impose our way of doing

things. For example, we cannot provide a commuter service without the co-operation of the province. We made an agreement for a commuter service from Richmond Hill, Ontario, to Toronto. The agreement is for $10 million. The service will be fed by all modes of transportation. People will be able to get to the heart of Toronto without having to wait many hours. This will avoid having to use thousands of cars which not only pollute but paralyse the city of Toronto. Therefore, we are working on this mainly with the minister of urban affairs. Everything is on the tracks, so to speak. I hope to see more achievements in the near future than have been seen up until this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the realism of the minister in referring to the necessity of co-operation between this government and the provincial governments and, in turn, with the municipalities. He will forgive me, I am sure, if I remind him that that was not quite the way it was given to the country last May and June. We were given great dreams of how our cities were going to be improved if the election went a certain way. However, we were aware of what was happening then. I am glad to know that at least something is being done.
The minister gave a bit of detail about the discussions relating to Toronto. Does he have at his fingertips any of the details relating to discussions involving Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: I am sorry, I did not hear the last part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I asked if the minister has any of the details regarding Winnipeg, similar to the details he has given about Toronto.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there was a special study in Winnipeg. The problem is how to implement it. In the meantime, this House has passed the Railway Relocation Act. This was needed before we could do anything about the reform of urban transportation because we did not have the necessary money. We now have that instrument and we can work with the provinces and municipalities, not everywhere at the same time but according to our means. We intend to do that. We are ready to do this in Winnipeg because of the studies that have been made. As far as dreams are concerned, there is something I know. I am sure the hon. member shares my view. Anything that has been done in this world started with a dream. Mr. Woodsworth was a dreamer, a very nice dreamer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the minister in one of his better moments is trying to silence me. He makes it difficult for me to say that I am still aware of the difference between the things that were said last May and June about how quickly these things would happen if only the country would elect a Liberal government. I am glad to know the minister can say that something is being done. I hope he will turn these dreams into reality and we will not have to be given dreams all over again at the time of the next election.
My second question has to do with Air Canada. I will not steal the thunder of the hon. member for Central Nova. I want to deal with one specific problem and I shall
May 12, 1975

give one specific example of the problem. I have in mind Air Canada's labour relations. Is there not something the minister can do to persuade this Crown corporation, of which we in this House are very proud, to do something to get over the bad record that it is developing? The particular case in point that I wish to cite is that of the employees of the Air Canada finance branch at Winnipeg. Unhappy misunderstandings have persisted there for months. Perhaps by now it is a couple of years. I hope this is concerning the minister and that he can tell us what he is going to do about it.


Jean Marchand: Of course I am concerned about this problem; I would like to see labour relations working very well. Apparently there are some grievances in Winnipeg. One of the reasons, I presume, why so many of the things that came out through Winnipeg is that the people there were not satisfied with the way certain things were being done. This led to the inquiry which we instituted and which is now going on. I do not think it would be fair for Air Canada or its employees to begin discussing this issue at the moment, however. I realize that the hon. member's question had to do with labour relations which are not the subject of the inquiry led by Mr. Justice Estey, but I believe the inquiry will probably reveal many of the things that are going on inside Air Canada and the report might be helpful in leading to better relations between Air Canada and its employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apparently the minister saw the look of puzzlement on my face when he referred to the inquiry which is taking place and intimated it would touch on the labour situation. I wondered if he was telling me that Mr. Justice Estey is looking into this aspect. If that is not the case, is there any other inquiry which can do so? Or is he saying that as a result of Mr. Justice Estey's inquiry, Air Canada will be put on its toes and realize it must patch up its labour relations in the same way as we hope it will patch up its financial affairs?


Jean Marchand: Even if there is no direct relationship between the grievances which have been expressed and the financial anomalies of Air Canada, there is no doubt the latter situation has some bearing upon the relationship between the group in Winnipeg and the headquarters in Montreal. Even if it is not a matter of collective bargaining, there is no doubt in my mind that some people are not satisfied with the way things are going. This creates unrest; it creates a bad atmosphere. If this were cleared up it would probably be easier to establish a better relationship within the organization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I share the minister's view, that means he shares mine. I hope he will pursue this matter with vigour. I have one other question, and if I gave the minister ten guesses he would guess it ten times. As we all know, a commission has been appointed by the Minister of Labour to deal with the whole question of railway pensions. Any questions relating directly to that inquiry should be directed to the Minister of Labour. But I shall narrow this issue down to that of Canadian National pensions. It is a question I have asked the minister during the question period. We have dealt
Business of Supply
with it on late shows. I find it difficult to jump too hard on the hon. gentleman because, again, I believe he agrees with me. But I am asking him to push as hard as he can with respect to this item.
It took a long time, and I mean a long time-decades-to get the CN to escalate the pensions of its retired employees. For decades, once CN workers had retired their pensions remained fixed throughout their lifetime. Four or five years ago we got those pensions escalated, but for about three years the escalation amounted to only 2 per cent a year and no more, no matter how much the cost of living went up. Last year, the CN improved the position by granting a 4 per cent escalation. But, Mr. Chairman, we are already in the month of May, 1975, and there has not yet been any escalation at all this year. I think the minister and I share the view that it is scandalous for the CN to ask its pensioners to wait all this time for a cost of living increase for 1975.
The excuse may be that the company is waiting for the Hall report. If so, that is not good enough. I am sure the report will not recommend anything less than the CNR and the CPR have been doing. Is there anything the minister can do to get the CN to come through, without further delay, with an escalation for 1975 in pensions of retired CN employees, either through his powers of persuasion or through his political clout? Since 10 per cent was the rate of escalation for the pensions of retired public servants, RCMP personnel, armed forces personnel, those on old age security and those receiving Canada Pension Plan benefits, that is what it ought to be with respect to CN pensions, certainly no less. This is my last question: Is there not something the minister can do to get Canadian National to be half decent to its retired employees?


Jean Marchand: The hon. gentleman talked to me about that last week, if my memory serves me well. I know there is a private bill on the order paper on this subject in the name of the hon. member for Levis. In the meantime, as I mentioned to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg "North" Centre.


Jean Marchand: Excuse me. I have never made any distinction as to that sort of thing. As I told the hon. member, I communicated with the chairman of the board of CN, making the representations he was making to me and with the same conviction, I think, as the hon. gentleman has displayed. The chairman of the board told me there was to be a meeting of the board on May 26 and that he understood very well our feelings here. Without giving a decision of the board-he is not authorized to do that-he did say he hoped we would be satisfied with the decision which would be taken. That is all I can say for the time being.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say I shall question the minister about this on Tuesday, May
27?

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have the opportunity to put some questions to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand).
Since his announcement of a great reform in this House, it seems to me that it is still at the study stage. We are told that the study is going on, but I wonder whether, when it has been completed, the Minister of Transport will have more authority, generally, on air or railway transport. Even if personnel increases as the budget increases year after year, in our area, the higher the budget, the worse the service.
Strange enough, as the budget increases, we note personnel increases in more comfortable offices and, in the same way, decreases in maintenance, so that today I think there are four technocrats for one maintenance worker, who will see to the maintenance of railways or airports. This is the remark I wanted to convey to the Minister.
Every time we have elections, we can see countless airplanes flying in the sky of our constituency. We are given promises and, then, we are told that they were only election speeches. I think that it is kind of cheating the population of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean. I know that the Minister is sometimes sincere. This afternoon I would like to put three or four questions to him. I would like him to answer directly, because he knows the needs of our area.
I would like to discuss airlines. He knows that the quality of air service in our area is presently at its lowest level ever. I do not know what are his plans for the future, but I would like to mention two or three problems and, particularly, the upgrading program of the Roberval Airport. I think it is the one he knows best. Does he still consider the Roberval Airport as the main one in our constituency? I would like to know what are his plans for this airport. In a moment, I will have another question to put about it. I would like to know his views on the Roberval Airport.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I had a chance a couple of times to land at Roberval airport and for a small city that is located fairly far from the centre, it was indeed a rather wonderful experience to be able to land there in a jet. My hon. friend knows that Roberval strip quite well. In any case, as you know, the use of airports or the construction of landing and take-off runways is not simply a matter of government will. At the same time there must be people ready to use them and prepared to give the service.
It is not only a matter of saying: Let us build a landing strip, and let us wait and see, perhaps some people will use it. If we start developing that kind of philosophy I can assure you we might have to increase taxes, and I do not rely much on my hon. friend to convince the voters that it is a good thing.
In any case, there is the problem of traffic at an airport like Roberval. No doubt it is the most important in his riding but it is not the most important in the area because there is a bigger airport in Bagotville. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the city of Chicoutimi is bigger than the city of Roberval, and to that I can do nothing.

As to the increase in costs, what happens to other services happens to airports too. It costs more to dig ditches today than a few years ago; it even takes a little longer and requires more people. Of course, we live in the same world. People used to work 60 hours a week, now they work 40, and I think my hon. colleague understands that quite well, even in his business.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Minister for his reply but I would point out to him that when he said it was absolutely essential that municipalities do their share-and I think he realizes that himself-the city and parish of Roberval have done their big share and are still doing it today.
Now I want to ask him a question about another project. I think the hon. Minister has never been very clear nor very specific on that project that was requested by the northern towns, namely Dolbeau and St. Felicien, concerning the construction of another airport. I have here a recent reply dated April 14, 1975, about that project.
We would like an airport to serve northern towns. The Minister has already contacted those groups, but it would be what is called the Dolbeau-Saint-Felicien airport in Saint-Methode or an existing airport. Air navigation courses are given there. In the answer I have on hand it is mentioned that a final decision regarding the location of an airport in this area has not been made yet but that studies are made regarding harbour facilities.
I should like the hon. Minister to tell us what he thinks about that second request in the riding of Roberval?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think that has been very clearly announced in the speech from the throne and in the program of the Ministry of Transport. Communications between remote locations and the major centres of our country are very important. We wish to multiply the number of airports insofar as it is financially possible or insofar as they can be used enough to be profitable. Otherwise, we would have to build airports in each town, each village. I am not against it, but I shall tell you what it would cost and by how much taxes would have to be raised. In each area there must be a means of communication. First, the Saguenay area is well connected to the cities of Quebec and Montreal by the Bagotville airport; I think that nobody has to complain about it. In the Lac-Saint-Jean area, there is the Roberval airport which might be improved. A certain amount has been provided for it in our estimates. This year, I do not know what is the amount provided for municipal and small airports serving remote areas. When all the money has been spent, it is not possible to print more. In Roberval the runway is already built, it has only to be made practicable. It might be the best place to start and a small municipal airport might be built later in Dolbeau. All that will be achieved according to our means, and we believe the Dolbeau municipality is right to try and develop faster communications with communities in the area and the major centres in the province.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, my second question deals with another kind of transportation, railway transportation.
May 12, 1975

On several occasions, I blamed the government, and especially the Canadian National, because it was the only company operating in our area. Now, they are not only taking trains away, but also closing down stations. They removed the Dolbeau station clerk, and I got letters from Chicoutimi, Jonquiere and Iberville telling me stations had been closed down in that area too. I shall let hon. members for those areas say what they have to say about that. In my constituency, the clerk was removed, and tickets are no longer sold in Dolbeau, which is a serious situation in summer, because many workers leave from Dolbeau for the fruit and vegetable picking season. I think there is a considerable number of customers in Dolbeau during two or three months. But ticket sales have just been discontinued. This is what railway workers have been complaining about. They said: At least they should have done it in winter, not in summer, during peak traffic.
I wonder if the minister is aware of that.
The "express" service is also being discontinued. I do not know if it is cheaper, but "express" services are being contracted out. They go to Montreal to get "express" contracts. One was awarded in Abitibi, another one will soon be awarded to our area; I believe that very soon the Canadian National and all its bureaucrats will be driving their desks, with their only job being to give out contracts to private enterprise. I believe this is what is coming. As things are going now, even passengers will be farmed out.
I would like to know the minister's opinion on that, whether that is an improvement or whether it heralds the curtailment of our rail services?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I suspect the hon. member is not completely aware of certain facts. They are quite the opposite from what he suggested. We are hearing numerous complaints about the Canadian National laying off employees. CP Rail does exactly the same thing. He says we are increasing the number of bureaucrats. On the contrary, I can assure him we are now reducing their numbers. They are bitterly complaining against it. I suggest the hon. member come to my office, where I can show him letters we are receiving exactly for this very reason that some are laid off.
We are now talking about a railroad and I think the hon. member will understand that it is not profitable to maintain a railroad on a year-round basis because the people in Dolbeau, Saint-Felicien, or elsewhere, use it only two months a year. If there is one area in the province where people use their car instead of the train to travel, it is in the Lac Saint-Jean area, and I know this area rather well since I lived there for many years. People like to have train service in case the roads are blocked or there are no other means of transportation. But this costs Canadian taxpayers a lot of money.
The problem in the Lac Saint-Jean area is the same as in Western Canada, where there are what are called "branch lines", which have not been used for years. Are we going to maintain them in the hope that one day we shall have customers who will board the train? I can give an example of this: there is at least one area in Canada which is costing us at least $6,000 a year for every passenger boarding the train.
Business of Supply


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


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, it is sometimes said that living on Vancouver Island is reward enough in itself, but I wonder if I might refer to three areas of transportation in relation to Vancouver Island, ask a question on each and then sit down to allow the minister to reply. My first question relates to the fact that it is the present policy of the federal government and the minister's department to provide subsidies to ferries that operate interprovincially or that run from Canada to the United States.
The situation which exists in this regard in respect of the mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island deserves special attention because we do not have the Trans-Canada Highway connecting the mainland to the island, obviously, because of the Strait of Georgia. This is something about which the minister and myself can do nothing. However, because of the fact that earlier we did make provision for federal subsidies to provinces in respect of the Trans-Canada Highway from coast to coast, it should be relevant to consider some form of subsidy in respect of ferries. Perhaps this subsidy could be in the form of assistance in the construction of new ferries. A great number of people from other provinces in Canada use the existing ferry system and draw heavily upon those services to the people of British Columbia, particularly Vancouver Island, and for this reason I think we should look seriously at the idea of providing subsidies for this very important service between Vancouver Island and the mainland.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing this with the hon. member and the government of British Columbia for many months. We are trying to determine if it is possible to do this without creating a precedent that would, of course, cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars. If we decided to subsidize all intraprovincial ferries, the cost would be tremendous. We have departed from this policy and we have in many cases succeeded in eliminating all ferries which were operating within the limits of provinces.
In the case of British Columbia, we have been given some reasons for providing such a subsidy, probably the most important of which is the one referred to by the hon. member, that is, that the Trans-Canada Highway should really start in Victoria and continue from the mainland in Vancouver, maintaining the link from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland. Such a link should be part of the federal responsibility, and this is something we have been trying to achieve, but the hon. gentleman will understand that if we did this generally for ferries, then I do not know how we could avoid doing it in respect of bridges. The same argument would apply because they, too, form part of the Trans-Canada Highway. This is not something we are refusing to discuss and the hon. member can be assured that I am ready again to look into the situation.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The second matter I should like to refer to is one that affects the northern part of Vancouver Island and the cessation of barge services to the isolated

Business of Supply
communities there. This service has been cut off because of the sparsely inhabited area, yet the barges are the only means of transportation since there are no roads or railroads in that area. I believe there is a precedent in that the federal government does subsidize the cost of bringing freight to those isolated communities in northern Vancouver Island by a ship called the Yewchuk. Recently, the Sea Span Barge Company of Vancouver terminated services to these isolated communities because, as it claimed, the cost of stopping at these areas was higher than the charge for delivering the freight. In other words, it is an uneconomical endeavour in view of the capital investment involved in bringing freight to these communities.
Since there is a precedent in that we do provide a subsidy to some sort of freight services for other isolated communities, I would suggest that we should provide a considerable subsidy to the Sea Span Barge Company which has within the last few months stopped providing this service to many communities on northern Vancouver Island because it is not profitable.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I come back to the argument I was advancing a few minutes ago. We are providing this kind of subsidy in the Northwest Territories because there is no provincial government there. We do it at this moment in Hudson Bay, for example, and the Arctic Ocean and through the Mackenzie River because those are territories where there is no provincial government.
Of course, we grant subsidies-and this might be a precedent-to the maritime provinces for intratransportation, partly by truck. To a certain extent this might be comparable to what we do in the Newfoundland coastal service which is within the limits of a province and to which we grant some subsidies. We can look at it again. We knew that private enterprise could not make money on it and would abandon this kind of service. We can either have some sort of agreement with the B.C. government or we can do it in the same way we are doing it in Newfoundland and the maritimes.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that should be pointed out at present is that, surprisingly enough, in the northern two-thirds of Vancouver Island, including the point from Nanaimo north, we have fewer transportation facilities than there are in the Yukon. The Yukon is considered to be a fairly remote territory which does not have some of the amenities of life that we are supposed to have in the southern part of Canada. But I think it is very interesting to point out that in the northern two-thirds of Vancouver Island, beside the fact that there is absolutely no rail transportation, we have no roads apart from logging roads at present and our airports there are fairly restricted. Therefore, we have a definite problem.
I would like to ask the minister a general question. In view of the fact that in my opinion this is a situation for which one can blame the federal, the provincial or the municipal government, would it not be appropriate, in view of the abysmal lack of transportation in our area, for a transport committee inquiry to be held regarding what

May 12, 1975
we could do and what co-operation we could get from the various levels of government in order to make that area inhabitable? We have resources in that part of the Island, including copper and other minerals, and we have a tremendous forest industry in the area, but we are unable to keep people up there because of the isolation and lack of means of communication such as railroads, radio and television.
To be quite honest, I will do anything in my power to bring this matter to the attention of the minister as well as the provincial government. In my opinion, this area has been neglected for many years. I will not go into the reasons it has been neglected, but let us start with the assumption that there is need for an inquiry into how we can bring that area, so full of potential, into production so we can increase the benefits from the area and keep families and communities together, instead of having people come up there for several months in order to earn enough money to go back to the large cities.
Could an inquiry be held so that at some time in the future we could consider providing various modes of transportation such as ferries, highways, air transportation, and so on, and so we could provide a service for the people in this area who have been crying for help from the various governments for many years?


Jean Marchand: In order to answer this question properly I would have to reveal a part of the new policy which we are designing. One of the points that we have studied in depth is the accessibility of certain communities because, of course, Canada is not the same everywhere, as the hon. member knows. Southern Ontario is different from northern Ontario which, again, is different from the Northwest Territories or the lower St. Lawrence. We will have to find formulas so that all these people can feel they are Canadians and have means of communicating with the main centres of Canada. This is something we are looking into.
We were speaking about subsidies a few minutes ago. Let me state that so far as British Columbia is concerned, right now we are giving over $700,000 to Vancouver and the northern ports, and for the service on the west coast of Vancouver Island-this is inside the province-we pay more than $168,000 through the CTC. So we are already doing something in this area. The problem which the hon. member raised, however, is a practical one of the accessibility of isolated communities. We have this problem not only on Vancouver Island but in many places in the north. Almost the whole of the northern portions of the provinces are in the same situation: they can hardly communicate with the south. The problem is one of isolation.


An hon. Member:: This is not the time to brag about it.


Jean Marchand: This is a problem to which we will pay much attention.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I can understand that the problem occurs in the northern parts of our Canadian provinces, but I think it should be brought to the attention of the minister that we run into a special problem: this area is not even in the north, in the geographical sense. The problem is merely in the fact that we have mountains, fiords and inlets which tend to break up the communication links
May 12, 1975

that we could have there. The difficulty of the problem lies not only in the inaccessibility of certain communities but in the cost of putting in services, which is bound to be very high.
The only redeeming feature-and one has to be practical in looking at these things-is the fact that there is tremendous potential in the area in respect of lumber, fishing and mining. This is a vicious circle, because population is needed there before the services can be provided. However, in order to get the people there, we need services to begin with. We seem to have been going around in circles for many years.


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


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Chairman, I hope to have the opportunity to discuss for a few moments with the minister two or three topics related to Air Canada, and I shall do everything I can to avoid impinging on any areas of the inquiry being conducted by Mr. Justice Estey. However, I would like to say to the minister that I had the opportunity to attend the hearings briefly, and I can assure him that he can be most satisfied and proud of the way in which the hearings are being carried out. Certainly, I was impressed with the way in which the hearings are conducted, the calibre of counsel, and all other procedures.
Perhaps at the end of my brief remarks the minister will deal with the points I have raised. First, I would like to ask him to what extent he has been kept informed, and to what extent he feels it is proper for him to be kept informed on an ongoing basis of the management and policy decisions of Air Canada. Does he receive, for example, from time to time, regular reports from the chairman and chief executive officer and copies of the minutes of meetings of the executive committee of Air Canada? Consequently, does he make some input himself into certain basic policy decisions of our national air carrier?
I would also like to discuss briefly the proposed reorganization of Air Canada's southern and United States region where it is contemplated that the southern region, comprised of some sovereign countries in the Caribbean, will be amalgamated with the United States region and the office of the United States region, which is now in Los Angeles, moved to 600 Madison Avenue, New York, with a target date as I understand it of approximately August 1 this year. I suggest that this, in effect, makes southern locations located in the central regions since 1971 part of the United States region which will be called the United States and southern region.
Without going into the matter in great detail, I wonder if the Minister could say whether he is aware of the implications of what is being done, and is he aware that reports and submissions have been made by officials of the Department of External Affairs to executives of Air Canada conveying opposition felt by some Caribbean countries at being lumped in with the United States? I am informed that these nations feel a greater affinity toward Canada than the United States, and that there is a feeling special relationships could be lost if they must be con-
Business of Supply
sidered as part of the United States rather than having their own special relationship with Air Canada, our national air carrier.
Before the minister answers I would like to suggest, also, that besides this possibly being counterproductive as far as efforts by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs are concerned with respect to their aims in the Caribbean area in extending Canada's good offices and sphere of influence, there is also the case of businessmen in what is now the southern region having to change their procedures in dealing directly with Canada, since I suggest that if the region is amalgamated according to the proposed plan, businessmen may have to obtain a rate to Canada through the New York office rather than dealing directly with a Canadian centre. This could be objectionable, and although I am not suggesting to the minister that this proposed reorganization is necessarily bad, I wonder if he is aware of all the various consequences of it and whether it could be a regressive step, taking into account the whole picture. I hope the minister will carefully consider this question and deal with it, if not today then quite soon.
Another topic I would like to discuss is related to remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about labour-management relations. I have enormous respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I would also like to go on record as saying that it is not my purpose, and I am sure it is not the purpose of any member, to denigrate, hurt or undermine Air Canada but to try to improve this great institution of which we are all proud. However, I am wondering about the cost factors and some of the problems of Canada's image involved in the strike in Paris. There was also a problem in New York, as the minister knows, with the IAM people walking out a few days ago. It seems to me that the contracting out procedures Air Canada is taking might merit some personal review by the minister.
I would also like to know if we could have some statistics on the cost of this Paris strike because, as I understand it, the regular Air Canada fare from Toronto to Paris is $328. Because of the strike in Paris, it is necessary to take passengers from Toronto to London, England. That fare, at $315, is somewhat cheaper, but to carry on to Paris there is an additional sector fare of approximately $57. The airline, of course, is responsible and must absorb the cost of approximately $44 because it is an involuntary re-routing, using airline parlance.
It has also come to my attention that some passengers who would have boarded in Montreal for Paris must be taken to Toronto. The fare is another $37 for these passengers. So all in all, I suggest that considerable financial losses are taking place because of this contingency with which our airline must cope. The image of Air Canada in France must be considered. There are certain French laws, as the minister well knows, which have to be taken into consideration in determining the future of these employees of Air Canada whose services are apparently no longer needed.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to say sincerely to the minister that, being on the opposition side, it is most difficult for us and for me to obtain the type of hard, accurate information which is necessary to suggest

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
changes or investigations. In the past, I have tried to be reasonably accurate with information I have given. I would now like to bring to the attention of the minister a situation which may exist-this is perhaps one of the most interesting parts, at least for me-where I have reason to think it would be a good idea if he would check to see what the relationship is regarding certain management consultant firms or personnel placement firms which deal with Air Canada, and supply or refer executives to this company.
As I understand it, it is the practice of the trade-at least, it has taken place in the past-that there is a fairly generous finder's fee involved when a personnel placement agency supplies an executive to Air Canada say at a salary of $40,000 per year. If the executive stays with the company for over six months, Air Canada is obligated to pay to the personnel placement agency half of the executive's salary for the first year, as a finder's fee, which, on the basis of the example of $40,000, would amount to $20,000.
I have reason to believe that a situation exists where in at least one case, and perhaps in others, a man who was vice-president and general manager of one of these finding bureaux, if I may use that term, arranged to have himself placed with Air Canada and worked there long enough that the firm which placed him qualified for the finder's fee, which was quite substantial because he was a fairly highly paid executive. During this time, the unusual part of the arrangement may well have been that he perhaps never really divested himself of his former interest and former position with the agency where he used to work which placed executives with Air Canada. If this type of situation does exist, it seems, to my comparatively untutored reasoning, that there could be a problem. I do not know how widespread it is. I have only heard of this particular instance.
There is another side to this situation which may be even more unusual than the one I have stated, and this is that one of the vice-presidents of Air Canada has a direct or indirect relationship with this management consultant firm. If that is the case, the minister can see the unusual problem involved. If, and I emphasize "if", this happens to be the case, I feel that the minister should be concerned. In checking into the relationships between management consulting firms of this type and Air Canada, perhaps the minister would begin by looking to see if that possibility exists with regard to the firm of John Hold Stethem-Claude Gareau Limited, of Montreal. There also is an Ontario wing of the company. If there is any substance to this, perhaps in the course of a few days the minister might make a report. If he requires more background information, I would certainly supply it to any of his officials.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I can be more precise with regard to that relationship later on. Canadian National is the owner of Air Canada. Canadian National has representatives on the board, and so have we. What strikes me in the relationship between the federal government and its Crown corporation is that it is not the same type of relationship as exists with any of the other Crown corporations. It depends, I presume, on the minister or the government in power at any given time. I

remember that Mr. C. D. Howe, who was not a socialist, created four or five Crown corporations and probably depended upon-


Mr. Benjamin:: Where is he, now that we need him?


Jean Marchand: We have a situation that is difficult to understand. For instance, the president of Northern Transportation Company is a member of Eldorado mines which is a Crown corporation. As president of the Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. he reports to me, while Eldorado mines reports to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This is the way it was set up, and perhaps some day we can correct this.
We receive the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of Air Canada-not of the executive committee but the reports of the board of directors. That is outside the control of the government; that is, the control that the government can exercise over the budget. Of course, Air Canada is more dependent on the CNR than it is on us. These are the things we have been looking into, and in future we will probably have a more normal kind of relationship.
As far as the vice-president who is involved in a placement is concerned, and whether there is a conflict of interest, I will make inquiries in the department and get the answer on that. Personally, I was not aware of that and I will be happy to look into it and give an answer before tomorrow night.


Mr. Francis:: Madam Chairman, I want to deal with some of the matters touched on by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the programs of the government in aid to public transit in some of the larger urban areas. The question was put to the minister with regard to certain cities, and I should like to put the question in regard to the national capital region. It may be that I am putting the question to the wrong minister and, if so, I am sure I will be set straight.
I should like to know what program there is for the development of plans for other forms of mass transit in the national capital region, in the hope that the federal government might be able to take more initiative in this particular area for which it has more responsibility than it has in many other urban areas in Canada. I hope it will be possible for the federal government to do certain things in the national capital region that will be by way of demonstration projects to other urban communities across Canada to illustrate what is it possible to do in the way of innovation and things that are new. In this connection, I should like to know what measures the department is taking by way of encouragement in basic research in urban transit.


Jean Marchand: The city of Ottawa is on the same footing as all the other important cities in Canada. I do not have special responsibility as far as the national capital region is concerned. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is in charge of the National Capital Commission, and I know that plans have been discussed by the city, the province of Quebec and the NCC. The Department of Transport is not involved at this stage but might
May 12, 1975

be later, as the province of Ontario might also become involved. I know they are working on all kinds of projects, but unfortunately I cannot enlighten my colleague about what is being done at this moment.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I appreciate the answer of the minister. I do not wish to press him on a matter which is not his responsibility, but I am interested in what he has to say as a senior member of cabinet and one who is experienced and knowledgeable in these matters. I wonder if one element that might bring forward something of special interest would be the money that the government is saving now in the national capital from the charges that are being made for parking facilities, which I support. There is a saving of perhaps $5 million a year to the government in this respect. I hope that the net effect will be to encourage the government to look to other measures that might assist because there is such a saving to it, in discouraging people from using private cars and to look with favour at alternative methods of getting to and from their employment.
In view of the special savings accruing to the government as a result of these policies, I hope the minister will confer with his colleagues to consider whether additional measures to encourage public transit can be undertaken.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Chairman, I wonder if I might continue with the unhappy saga of passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario, a matter with which the minister is closely concerned and which has been raised repeatedly in this House since March or April, 1970. In order that the minister not be unnecessarily confused by other matters, such as urban transit around the city of Toronto, perhaps I should trace the history of the service, or lack of it, since 1970. In that year the CTC held public hearings as a result of a CNR application to discontinue certain trains. Permission for discontinuance of 400 miles of passenger service was given in November, 1970, in spite of a mountain of evidence of the necessity for the service.
During 1971, there was considerable debate in this House and considerable public uproar about the discontinuance of service. In the spring of 1972, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was charged with the responsibility of holding hearings throughout southwestern Ontario to determine the adequacy of passenger rail service. The committee visited London, Chatham, Stratford and Walkerton in the spring of 1972. The committee's report was published in June, 1972, and included a unanimous recommendation that the passenger service eliminated on November 1, 1970, be immediately reinstated.
In the twenty-ninth parliament a series of questions were asked, starting in April, 1973. There were motions, debates, petitions and groups which came to Ottawa. I remember that in the winter of 1972 or early spring of 1973 the warden of one of the counties affected went back to his locality and was reported in the Guelph Mercury of June 15, 1973, as saying:
Our brief was very well received and Mr. Marchand appeared to react in a most favourable way to our presentation. I believe I can say that after our talks I am optimistic about the future of our area and provision of proper transportation for its residents.
Business of Supply
That response was typical of the people who came to Ottawa and who talked to the minister, his parliamentary secretary or departmental officials. They always left Ottawa feeling optimistic. In mid-1973 the minister started talking about the CTC study and tri-level discussions, and emphasized the need to consult local people. In September, 1973, he agreed to release the CTC study around the first or second week of October. Nothing happened, Mr. Chairman. On November 20, 1973, Mr. Benson appeared in the standing committee along with the minister and said that the report might be ready by the end of November. He also mentioned a survey that was being taken by the CTC of some 12 families in the area affected.
On January 7, 1974, in reply to a question which I put to him in the House, the minister said that he had received the CTC report, it had to be distributed to all interested parties and that it was to be studied soon at a tri-level conference. I believe that everyone took tri-level to mean federal, provincial and municipal. On January 8, the next day, it was determined that the report had not been made available to members of parliament, provincial representatives, municipal officers and the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. On January 9, 1974, we were still waiting for the third portion of the report consisting of the survey, Gallup poll or whatever one may call it.
Finally, in 1974, parts I and II were tabled. Part III, received by the minister well over one year ago, has never been tabled despite requests to that effect. During 1974, the CNR continued to dispose of its railway stations in southwestern Ontario and continues to do so to this day. In October, 1974, the minister stated that the matter was still under study with Ontario and there was no further reference to tri-level conferences or consultations with municipal officials or others directly affected by this loss of service. On October 23, 1974, during debate on the Treasury Board estimates, an hon. member read the following portion of a letter dated October 9 and written by the minister's research assistant, as reworded on page 683 of Hansard:
Last year, the CTC's research branch carried out a thorough study of transportation services in the area and came to the conclusion that rail passenger services were not supportable by the population and that the preferred method of travel would be an improved rationalized bus service, a possible link to the existing main line passenger trains between London and Toronto.
That brings us up to date. May I now ask the minister a number of questions? First, has a tri-level conference ever been convened, as promised by the minister on January 7, 1974?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, we held a tri-level conference in Toronto at which the urban community was represented by Mr. Rhodes, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. There were other meetings in Ottawa, on this matter, with the provincial minister responsible for roads. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is trying to institute the tri-level conference system right across Canada. This is a long process as some provinces are reluctant to include municipalities in an organization which includes provincial and federal governments. There are some difficulties of adjustment. We

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
have met, probably four of five times with the government of Ontario in an attempt to resolve some problems which have existed since 1970 or 1972.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Chairman, may I ask the minister why the third part of the CTC study, referred to as the survey, Gallup poll or what have you, has never been made available to members of parliament, provincial representatives or municipal officials? Why has the minister refused, to date, to table that report? If he is not refusing, will he tell us when he intends to table it?


Mr. Nielsen:: He knows nothing about it; he is conferring with his officials.


Jean Marchand: Please excuse me, Madam Chairman; I am looking for the report as well.


Erik Nielsen: The CTC would not even give it to the minister.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps it has been lost somewhere in the mail.


Gerald William Baldwin: Move for the production of papers.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, before tabling the report we must have agreement of the government of Ontario. After we obtain that agreement we can table the report and make known the basis on which we reached agreement.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Chairman, may I ask another question arising from that answer? Has the government of Ontario not completely repudiated the efficacy of that report and suggested that it is totally unsatisfactory? It was not satisfied with the questions asked, with those to whom questions were directed or with the responses demanded by the nature of the questions. In other words, has not the province of Ontario said to the Department of Transport, "This report is completely unacceptable"?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I am told the province does not like the report. We are still working on the problems which must be solved in southwestern Ontario. Of course, if the province does not accept the report and does not accept our efforts at co-operation, we will not table the report: what would be the purpose?


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Chairman, does the minister consider it acceptable for his department to operate on the basis of reports prepared by the CTC, when the CTC ordered the discontinuance of services in the first place? In other words, is the report of a body which is really sitting in judgment on its own decisions acceptable as a guide for future policy decisions the minister might make?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I suggest that the hon. member should read the speech I made in the House on a previous occasion. Do we want to change the law? The CTC is given wide powers, and I do not know how many inquiries the CTC is making at one time. They have the authority to do this, and most of the time they are not even under the obligation of communicating the results to me. That is the way matters stand, and this was

done with the acceptance of this House: many of us were here when we passed that law.
I do not blame anybody. We thought we were setting up a regulatory body which would prove useful. I think it is useful to have this regulatory body. The question is, can we take away from government the responsibility in this field? All I can say at present is this: it is just too bad, but they did not send me the report. They decided to hold an inquiry, but I did not ask for one. This is the way matters stand. If we want to change that state of affairs, we will have to make some suggestions to the House.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but according to the agreement made today, the time allotted to him has now expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, may I direct several questions to the minister. Since the holding of the western economic opportunities conference in Calgary, a number of policy thrusts have been announced and agreed upon by the federal government, in particular the Ministry of Transport, and provinces of Canada, particularly western Canada. I wish to ask the minister when the government intends to implement the announcements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice in last year's election campaign. Specifically, I am referring to the minister's commitment to establish a passenger train corporation. What has happened to that corporation? When does the government intend to establish it? Also, has money been set aside in the present estimates for the corporation?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, during the election campaign we said that if the passenger train system were not improved we would create a new corporation that would be given responsibility for operating passenger trains in Canada. The first thing I did after the election was to ask Mr. Sinclair and Mr. MacMillan to come to my office: I asked, "Are you interested in operating passenger trains, because you are losing money?" They both said they were very keenly interested in operating passenger trains.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the price was right.


Jean Marchand: Yes, that is what they told me. I asked what they intend to do about it. There is something new since then. We do not intend to stop there. We now have a turbo train which operates between Montreal and Toronto and another between Ottawa and Montreal. CP is ready to start the LRC train. They want to operate this between Ottawa and Montreal, but we are not sure that is the best thing to do. Our agency in Montreal, the Transportation Development Agency, is working on this aspect of the problem.
If we cannot get a satisfactory decision from the railways, we will create this corporation. This has not been put aside. It is a right that we reserve and which will be exercised if the railways keep this attitude of not operating their services in the field of passenger trains, prefer-
May 12, 1975

ring to use old cars rather than renewing their rolling stock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Other than the turbo train and the LRC experiment, neither railroad has placed any orders for new equipment. They have not extended any money to prove their so-called interest in passenger train service. Does the minister take that as any kind of sign that he should now move on a publicly-owned passenger train service?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I do not think that would be reasonable. We want to have a new, progressive policy in that field. We want the railways to follow this policy. However, it is difficult to ask them to follow a policy which is not yet known. This is why it is urgent that there be this policy. It must be approved by cabinet and the House. If the railways then do not want to do that, it will be just too bad; we will do it ourselves.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister has had 12 months to say that to them. I will now refer to another specific item in the Liberal Party's election program commitment-a freight car leasing corporation. Aside from the hopper cars that we all know about, since World War 11 the railroads have been short of freight cars, refrigerator cars, stock cars and gondola cars; there is no denying that. Is there anything about this in the estimates? What is the government policy to carry out a commitment they made in June and July last year with regard to a freight car leasing corporation?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the hon. member's questions are all related to the policy on which we have been working and which we want to announce. After that, the hon. member will be justified in saying we have forgotten a part of what we had intended to do. Of course, the situation this year is not the same as last year when we had a shortage of not only hopper cars but lumber cars and even box cars. There has been no such shortage this year. Of course, the economic situation is different. We have instituted a monitoring system which has helped us to a certain extent in attaining better productivity from our cars. The hon. member's question concerns something which is supposed to be integrated in the general policy we are about to produce.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will move to another specific item in the commitments made by the government in June and July of last year and repeated in the communique issued on February 24 as a result of the conference in Calgary between the minister and his counterparts in the western provinces. It has to do with the freight rate structure. The minister and his counterparts said the principles on which they were going to act, led by the Minister of Transport, included rate groupings, a reduction of horizontal increases, maximum rate restrictions and the anomalies in the long haul-short haul of raw and finished products.
These anomalies have been compounded twice in the past six months. As a result of the public statements made by the presidents of both railroads, I understand they will be compounded. I remind the minister that the spread between shipping live cattle and dressed beef from Saskatoon to Montreal, Ottawa or Toronto, used to be 91 cents a hundredweight more for dressed beef than live cattle: it now costs $1.17 more a hundredweight. Since January 1,
Business of Supply
the spread has increased by 26 cents a hundredweight. That flies in the face of the communique of February 24 with regard to anomalies between raw and finished products. The packing industry in western Canada is in great difficulty.
The minister has allowed, in violation of the February 24 communique, a horizontal increase. That is violation number one of four items in the communique. Second, there is a violation of item number 4 in that communique with regard to the anomalies between raw and finished products. What is the minister going to do about that? What legislation does he have to give the authority? Are we going to get it? What is in the estimates concerning the commitments that were made by the Liberal Party during the election compaign and the February 24 communique?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, we never said, and never will say, unless the policy of this government changes, that there will not be increases in rates in Canada. The western ministers and I spoke about rate grouping and horizontal increases; that is true. We also talked about a few other matters. We will stick to the policy we agreed to with the western ministers. New across the board increases which concern mainly what are called the class rates, and dont't forget this is only 4 per cent of the revenues of the railways-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That has nothing to do with it.


Jean Marchand: It has something to do with it. If we look at the items and how they are broken down, we see all the categories with all rates increased, and it is not an across the board increase. The hon. member knows what an across the board increase is. Anyone connected with the labour movement knows that it means the same amount for everyone. The railways have not done that. Even if all the rates have been touched, the increases have still been selective. Therefore, we need to have the same definition for what across the board means and what actually happened. As far as the rest is concerned, we are still working with the western ministers so that the policy that was announced is implemented.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is another item which has been hanging fire for four years or so. If the cabinet has made a decision on it lately, I regret my ignorance. I refer to the rates on rapeseed oil and rapeseed products. The western provinces appealed a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission in March of 1974. Has the cabinet made a decision yet and, if so, what was the nature of that decision? This matter goes back to a legal dispute between the shippers and the railways, the provinces supporting the producers and shippers. An appeal was made to the cabinet. What happened?


Jean Marchand: We are waiting for a supplementary report from the CTC and we have asked that this report should be made available as soon as possible. The question of rapeseed rates is a very complicated one because it is related, to a certain extent, to the Crowsnest pass rate system. We have to judge what the impact is likely to be and, of course, we take all the time we need in order to protect the farmers of the west. We are expecting

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
this report, but I can tell the hon. member personally that this is one of the most complicated problems which has ever come to my attention in the Ministry of Transport.


B. Keith Penner: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. Before recognizing the hon. member for Hastings, I should like to inform the committee of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Health-Asbestos levels in Lake Superior; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Fisheries-Exclusion of some areas of Newfoundland from compensation program; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Air Transport-Service for southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan.


Mr. Ellis:: Madam Chairman, there are so many questions which could be asked during the time available for questioning the minister that it baffles the mind, especially as so few answers are apt to be given; it has been extremely difficult to get information from the minister during the year. During the first session of this parliament some 346 questions were directed to the hon. gentleman or, in his absence, to the parliamentary secretary or, once in a while, to the acting minister of transport. This figure does not include the number of questions on the order paper or questions about transport directed to other ministers from time to time. Of those 346 questions, about one-third concerned railways-half of those on freight rates-and approximately one-third related to air transport. A large number of the latter concerned Air Canada; and there were, of course, a large number of questions lately on the popular subject of dredging.
However, we are not receiving answers to these questions. I have directed a good many questions to the minister, but most of the time we get from him a statement that the subject is under study, that he will inquire into it. In reply to one question which I directed to the hon. gentleman some time ago, I got the one word, "Soon". That was about a month and a half ago and I have received no further information since then.
This being a committee of supply, questions ought rightfully to be addressed, I suppose, to the increase which has taken place in the department's budget. My hon. friend from Lisgar asked a number of questions with regard to public relations. I recall asking similar questions in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and these, in turn, prompted me to make further inquiries. I will read through some of the questions and then give the minister a chance to answer them.
The increase in the cost and size of the department has, frankly, shocked me even against the current background of inflation. For example, the budget for the headquarters of this department has increased in three years by 108 per cent. Madam Chairman, this bears no relation to any increase in costs that we have seen or any indices which are available to us, which leads me to believe that these increases are actually leading inflation, not following it, and that they are the root cause of inflation in many areas.
I recall being involved in a discussion regarding one specific area of marine transportation. I might say I admire the minister's frank answers to certain questions

even when such answers might obviously be somewhat embarrassing. I asked a question concerning marine transportation and I remarked there had been a 32 per cent increase authorized in man hours during 1975. I was curious how all these people could be employed-whether they were being used for cannon fodder or something like that. We were given to understand that studies were going on concerning two different types of ice-breakers. The minister himself brought out the fact that the department was actually engaged in studies concerning three different types of ice-breakers. I admire his frankness, but surely it would be possible to carry out one study directed at three types or ice-breakers rather than three studies of ice-breakers.
I am not being critical of individuals, but one day I did a rough calculation of the number of staff on hand during the committee hearings and found they outnumbered the members supporting the government on the committee, they outnumbered the members of the opposition, they outnumbered the spectators and they outnumbered the committee staff. My estimate was that it would cost between $10,000 and $15,000 to pay the salaries of the staff present during the hearings of that one committee. One of my hon. friend points out that they almost outnumber us in the chamber this afternoon. It is gratifying to see them here, in a sense, but my point is that with so many members of the staff available we should be able to get answers to some of the questions we ask.
In reply to one of the questions we asked in connection with transportation safety, the answer was given us in a document prepared by the Canadian Transport Commission. I know the minister does not feel that this commission comes under his authority, but reference was made in that reply to setting out a conceptual model for defining the socially optimal level of safety. Madam Chairman, what in heaven's name is a conceptual model for defining the socially optimal of safety? As I have said before in this chamber, I am just a huckleberry from Hastings county. But does the minister really know what that is? Apparently it is a tool. It says here it is an important tool. I don't know what kind of tool it is, but I get a little upset about the use of that kind of language, considering that a number of people we have here should be able to speak English.
With the range of questions open to us, I know I could go on for two hours without running out of questions. However, I want to put a few specific questions to the minister, in the time I have left, regarding the amount spent on consultants by his department. Again I hark back to the very large staff the department has. I remember at one time I facetiously asked the deputy minister whether he had brought the whole department with him, but I was assured that he had brought only a very small portion along. I have had individual dealings with members of the staff and there is no question that they have some very talented people. But with this wealth of talent, why do we make extensive use of consultants?
I should like to ask the minister to be good enough to give me an answer in respect to some of these examples. The first is a firm from New York city, John J. McMullen Associates, on whom we spent $46,000 to design a flame
May 12, 1975

stabilization system for a railcar carrier. Another firm, R. L. Banks and Associates, of Washington, D.C., received a contract for $260,000 to study railway pricing methods and the effect that such methods have upon national and regional economics in Canada. Then a firm called Bruce Mallen and Associates-I like this example particularly- received a contract for $27,500 to undertake up to 700 interviews relating to motivational aspects of the private industry in Canada and provide information in tabulated form. Once again, Madam Chairman, why would we spend $27,000 to find out what any business student could find out in a very short time, and probably knows anyway? Another firm, Hedlin Menzier and Associates, received a contract for $153,200 to provide assistance in the development of an initial exploratory forecast for transportation in Canada and to assist in a final report. Once again, this poor huckleberry from Hastings county has trouble understanding why we are spending $153,000 on this.
I see my time has just about run out, so perhaps we could have some idea from the minister why it is we spend hundreds of thousands-yes, millions of dollars hiring consultants when we obviously have a very talented staff at our disposal.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman wants to know why some of the answers are not satisfactory. I suggest he has only to read the questions that he just asked a few minutes ago. I do not know how any intelligent man can intelligently answer such questions. He simply cites the figures without disclosing what is behind the figures, what is behind the research, whether it is important or not. Because we speak about concepts and conceptual frameworks or schemes, he finds it difficult. I do not find it very difficult; it is easy. Anyway, I will copy the questions he has asked and I will send them to all the people in my riding so they can see what kind of questions are put to the Minister of Transport.


Erik Nielsen: You will probably get some answers, too.


Jean Marchand: I will double my majority.


John Raymond Ellis: On a question of privilege, what does the minister think I am going to do with some of the answers he has given me? I am going to send those to the people in my riding.


Jean Marchand: The first question had to do with the increase in overhead of 108 per cent, which is quite an amount. I must repeat what I have already said; if the hon. member had had a pencil at the time he would not have needed to ask the question. Some 45 per cent of this increase is for the Cornwall institute, and this is a 20 per cent increase in man-years. That adds up to 65 per cent. As for the rest, I will find out and give him the details, but it is something that can be easily answered. There is no scandal. It is the kind of increase we meet almost everywhere, in all institutions and in all departments, and even in private enterprise.
As for contracts that are awarded outside the government, a case can be made on that, too, but not in the way the hon. member made it. For example, should we have a permanent staff of engineers to build airports, or should
Business of Supply
this be done under contract by outside engineers? Should we have a group of architects that are civil servants, and should we tell them to design all buildings for the government, or should this work be done under contract by outside architects? We do have, of course, a corps of engineers and a corps of architects who exercise control and help us in our work, but the best way is to get some outside engineers on many occasions. Take an airport like Pickering or Mirabel; we do not build those every day.


Frank Oberle: That is not what the hon. member asked you.


Jean Marchand: He simply referred to contracts without defining anything.


Frank Oberle: He told you what the contracts were for.


Jean Marchand: As for professional and special services, these totalled $85 million for the department, $53 million for the government and $32 million for outside firms. I agree we can discuss the philosophy of this, but not the fact that specific contracts were awarded.


B. Keith Penner: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has now expired.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Chairman, I have a few questions I wish to put to the hon. minister.
First, I should like to ask him a question concerning an inquiry he ordered to study the causes of losses of lives and fishing vessels on the Pacific Coast. He ordered that inquiry recently, and I should like to ask him whether he has yet received the report and whether he intends to include in the legislation the recommendations contained in the report.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, we have received the preliminary report, the report on the first inquiry on the above-mentioned causes; this report, as such, is not for publication for the obvious reason that several of the witnesses who appeared before our own investigators would refuse to do so if they knew that their names would be used publicly. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is. Usually, in such circumstances a formal inquiry is held afterwards and is used as basic documentary evidence.
In this case, the preliminary report is complete enough to allow us to readily suppress names and to submit a substantial summary so that members of parliament are made aware of what happened. As soon as I can have the report translated into French, it will be tabled in the House.


Donald W. Munro: I wish to thank the minister for his clarifications on that subject.
I should like to refer to another matter that relates to confused or combined jurisdictions as between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment. This occurred at a time when the minister's depart-
5700

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
ment was responsible for certain shore rights and concluded an agreement with the developer of a marina at West Bay, near Esquimalt. I have had correspondence with the minister, and the confusion is being compounded. I have been assured by the minister that everything is in order and that the developer has fulfilled the terms of the contract and there have been no written complaints. I should first of all like to read into the record a portion of the terms of the contract completed between the department and the developer. It states:
That the lessee shall not... do, suffer or permit to be done, any act or thing in or upon the said land which shall or may be, or might become an annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to the occupiers of any lands or premises adjoining or in the vicinity of the said land-
There have been letters from people who are living in an area adjoining this West Bay marina which was developed when the Department of Transport had the responsibility. People living in areas overlooking this marina have written me and I have sent copies of each of those letters to the Ministry of Transport. To suggest in writing to me that there have been no written complaints is not right. There were no written complaints to the municipality, and that is the context in which the reply was made, but there have been written complaints and the minister has them on his file. If he does not, I will certainly provide them.
The municipality resisted these written complaints and suggested these people should write to their member of parliament or to the Ministry of Transport. I feel there has been an attempt at a run-around here, in two senses: firstly, there is the suggestion that the terms of this contract have been lived up to. That is not the case, and I do not think it is right or proper for the Minister of Transport to indicate to a member of parliament that the terms have in fact been fulfilled when they have not. Secondly, as a result of the transfer of responsibility from the Ministry to Transport to the Ministry of the Environment there has been an attempt to suggest it is no longer the business of the Minister of Transport but that it belongs to the Minister of the Environment. This is just not good enough. The government has signed the lease; the minister signed in the capacity of a minister of the Crown. He has bound the Crown and the other signatory to perform certain things. To suggest now that this lease is being fully fulfilled is something I will not accept. I am going to keep at this until I get a satisfactory answer. Is there any clarification the minister or his officials can give now in respect of this matter? If that is not the case, I have a number of other questions.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I will have to refresh my memory on this matter. Let me remind the hon. member of two things. Marinas have never been under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, but always under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. We do have what we refer to as the small craft harbours act which was operating under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport but was transferred to the Department of the Environment. Perhaps this is what the hon. member is referring to. If he is referring to a marina, then we have never had jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was transferred to the Department of the Environment a year and a half or two years ago.

I would ask the hon. gentleman through you, Mr. Chairman, whether he thinks I am the one that should be responsible, even if I signed the agreement, when that jurisdiction was transferred? The hon. member refers to an agreement that I do not remember. I will have to refresh my memory. If I signed that agreement, then the responsibility now lies with the Minister of the Environment. I do not suggest the government has been liberated from its responsibilities, but if there are some objections, they belong to the Minister of the Environment and not to the Minister of Transport.


Donald W. Munro: I thank the minister for that clarification and I point out that he signed the agreement in the name of Her Majesty, in right of the Minister of Transport, on April 26, 1973. The transfer of jurisdiction was subsequent to that but the binding aspect on the Crown is the same. What I object to is the issuance of erroneous information simply because the matter is now in the hands of another department. There are facilities for interdepartmental consultation.
There is another matter of interdepartmental relations to which I should like to refer. This is in relation to the loss of four tank cars filled with chlorine in the Strait of Malaspina. This happened about six weeks ago. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport have been saying different things about this. While I received some assurance the other day in committee, I should like to know whether the Minister of Transport will carry out the necessary salvage operations or make the facilities available to the company which claims to have found the cars containing this highly polluting material. Perhaps the minister would answer my questions.


Jean Marchand: I have just received this information, and have not been trying to withhold it. I am told that a search has been made and the chlorine rail cars have been found in deep water. I am informed that they intend to use a manned submersible in order to inspect the site to determine what can be done.


Donald W. Munro: Again, I think these clarifications are worth having on the record. I am delighted we have got that far. We have to go a step further. We must get these chlorine tank cars out of the water. I understand there are facilities the Department of Transport can make available to a private contractor to undertake the salvage operation so that this pollutant will no longer be of danger to the community.
I should like to refer to earlier questions I raised in the House about safety measures for small craft, particularly commercial craft including tugs and fishing boats. Last October there was a question raised about the requirement of detector buoys or devices installed on tugs. I understand that regulations to that end were drawn up and ready for implementation, but there was some hesitation on the part of tugboat owners because of cost. I should just like to know where we are on this matter now because, for example, this would have saved a great deal of time in the search for the fishing vessels which were lost at sea. Has there been some device on which aircraft or other vessels could home? This might even have saved some lives. So far as I know, 14 lives were lost on that particular occasion in a very short time, a matter of ten days, and some 10 or 11
May 12, 1975

vessels. The installation of such safety devices on board commercial vessels before they put to sea would assist enormously in finding them in time to save lives and, of course, the vessels and their contents. Are we any further ahead with these regulations?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I will answer in greater detail after the dinner recess, if I have the opportunity. However, I remember very well-and now I am speaking from memory-that it was impossible to install these devices even in small tugs because the devices were too heavy. I do not say that we cannot find a device for smaller craft. Perhaps we can and perhaps we should, and this is what we are looking into now.


Donald W. Munro: Do I still have some time left, Madam Chairman? May I ask a couple more questions?


B. Keith Penner: Yes, the hon. member has some time left.


Donald W. Munro: My next question relates to marine traffic control regulations. I believe there are some installations now being prepared or installed in Vancouver for remote monitoring of traffic coming in from the Pacific through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and up into the Straits of Georgia. There are LORAN or other similar types of radar installations along the coast so that incoming vessels may be followed. There are, presumably, shore to ship radio communications installed, and a general program for bringing in the ships in very much the same way as aircraft are brought in for night landings or through fog. In addition to the work being done by Canadian authorities, what consultations are there with Americans to combine their particular traffic operation with any operations on the Canadian side-a starboard-in starboard-out type of operation, for example?


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


Mr. Fleming:: Madam Chairman, I want to take the opportunity today to discuss a couple of areas in transportation that are of real concern to me. Earlier I heard one hon. member opposite, I believe from the Stratford area, discussing rail passenger traffic in southwest Ontario. That subject does not have a great deal of direct effect on my constituents but it is something about which I have some personal knowledge, having grown up and moved through different places within southwestern Ontario, and having relatives living in the area of the Bruce peninsula.
I am sure the minister does not have to be reminded of the unanimous agreement of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in the 1968 to 1972 parliament that railway passenger transport should be put back into full operation in the general southwestern Ontario grid complex. I should simply like to encourage the minister, if I can, to give this the highest priority possible when he is considering the over-all issue of developing a general rail policy in Canada. I am sure the benefits of such a program would be overwhelming for the people of southwestern Ontario, and of other parts of the country, where
Business of Supply
there is density of population and where railway systems are not being put to their full use. I have the same sympathy for the development of efficient rail passenger systems from isolated communities of some population to more densely populated communities.
When you consider the cost and efficiency of rail traffic as against the passenger car-the railway car handling 40 to 60 people versus 30 or 40 automobiles for the same number of people-when you consider the fuel factor, the cost of road construction and the use of viable farm land for such construction, one realizes-and I am sure the minister and his officials agree-that railways can play a vital role in the transportation policy that I spoke about in the last election campaign, and which I look forward to helping to develop as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in this parliament.
In talking about the development of a rail grid in an over-all transportation policy I would like to suggest that another priority is the triangle formed of Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto. It is vital. Often I hear from my friends in the west and in the east, and those who talk to me from the north, that attention is always focused on southern Ontario, Montreal, and Toronto. When I speak about the importance of a highspeed, efficient, rail system between these three cities-our two largest and most active commercial centres, as well as the nation's capital-I am not talking only of the benefit to the people who live within that densely populated triangle but also of benefits for the people from other parts of Canada who must do business with the government or with their counterparts in these cities. To them as well that kind of rapid communication between these three centres is vital.
It is not only passenger service for people within that area but also tourist traffic that would benefit from rapid communication so that people will be able to travel to our capital which has been developed, at the cost of so much Canadian taxpayers' money, into perhaps the most beautiful capital in the modern world. The Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto grid is vital to any national rail transport policy.
The second point I want to make is one to which I hope the minister will give serious consideration. I should like to spend a moment or two addressing myself to the issue of airports, and specifically to the problem we had with airports in the Toronto area. I think I have been one of the most outspoken people in favour of the development of the Pickering airport. I know that the minister and the government have taken a considerable amount of heat in finally arriving at that decision. I also have had the personal experience of meeting women who have to stay around the house in daytime and who suffer nervous breakdowns as a result of the tremendous noise pollution in the vicinity of the Toronto international airport. Coming from a very large riding with a population Qf
150,000	I can talk about 30,000 to 40,000 people living with noise levels beyond tolerance, so when I stand in support of the development of Pickering I think I stand in defence of my constituents and their right to a decent lifestyle in a proper environment.
You certainly cannot tell people in public housing who live along those flight paths, or the several thousands senior citizens who live in large complexes directly in line with the runways, that it is their fault and that they
29561-17%

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
should have known ahead of time about the disadvantages of living there. Nor could you say to the people who live in moderately priced homes in the vicinity of the airport and have lived there for 15 to 20 years that they should have been able to predict what technology would bring in the development of air traffic in Canada.
I am pleased that the government has taken this difficult decision and I believe that in the long run, if the government of Ontario can say no to the Spadina Expressway to protect people in the downtown core, to improve their health, and if the city of Toronto can stop the development of high rise business complexes in downtown Toronto for the protection of the environment, then our federal government is acting similarly to protect people who are not immensely wealthy but who have the right to a decent environment.
Having said that, I noted in my mail in the last week or two considerable concern about the announcement of plans for passenger terminal expansion at Toronto international airport. An assurance was given in 1968 when the minister of transport at that time said that there would be no new runway expansion, and no new expansion of existing plans at Toronto international. But he also said that did not mean they would not go ahead with the plans as they were then on the books; these would have to be proceeded with because of a projected increase in traffic, and there would have to be adequate passenger facilities. I have explained that to my constituents who have written to me, and I support the minister. I know he is living up to the word of the government of that day when he announces that there will be some expansion of Terminal
2.
As I see the expansion which has now been announced; it will still not be as great as that which was on the bdoks in 1968 when the commitment was made. But having talked about people in my area having hope of relief some years down the road because of Pickering, and knowing that in Pickering, thank goodness, we will have learned from mistakes in planning and lack of foresight at all levels of government which could not foresee the development and rapid advance of air passenger traffic at Malton, I hope similar mistakes will not be made at Pickering.
Comparing the number of people who will be displaced at Pickering with the number of people in areas beyond noise tolerance in my area, the percentage at Pickering is minuscule indeed. Meanwhile the proper buffer zone can be put in and still leave far fewer people disrupted. And I suggest that in many cases people who live in that area come from other parts and have taken the opportunity to live in older homes and have advantages most Canadians do not have.
The argument about losing excellent farm land is nonsense, to my way of thinking. I know the area extremely well, and a great deal of that land is occupied by gentleman farmers or landed gentry, in the sense that they do not work the land. In some cases they do rent it to farmers, and more will be in use as farm land with the development of Pickering than at the present time.
It concerns me that in my area, with the expansion we have because of the new terminal facilities going in at

Toronto international, and because we know Pickering, even in its most minor development, will not be operational for several years, my people will not only not gain immediate relief from the very real noise problem they have, but the noise will grow worse until Pickering is started. When Pickering brings them relief, they will be lucky if it rolls back to the current intolerable level.
I wonder therefore, if the minister is giving consideration to ordering the installation of noise suppressors on Canadian aircraft. I realize it is difficult with international carriers, but Canadian aircraft carry the majority of passengers in Canada. I wonder whether the department is considering forgiveable loans, say forgiveable loans according to the sizes of the fleets of the airlines involved, and whether it would even consider, as a priority, trying to modify noise levels on the worst offenders, which are the DC-8's, if I am not wrong.
Mir. Alkenbrack: Madam Chairman, I have a couple of points I would like to inquire about.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Chairman, on a point of order, have I used up all my time? If not, I wonder if the minister might respond to my questions.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I agree entirely that we should improve and exploit, much more than we have, the passenger train system. As far as the parliamentary committee is concerned, I hope that we will have the opportunity of discussing that, because there are many aspects. We have met several times with the government of Ontario to study which lines to develop. We have an agreement on the Richmond line, and we are about to reach an agreement on another line, which corresponds with the suggestions of the hon. member.
I agree entirely that we should use passenger trains much more than we have in the past. There is no doubt that there is a natural corridor where the bulk of the population in Canada resides, from Quebec city to Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor. In this corridor I think there should be a very efficient passenger train service. I agree with the hon. member on that too. These are not the only places in Canada where trains are needed. Trains are needed in Vancouver, Hamilton, Calgary probably, Edmonton and Winnipeg. There are other places, but I think there should be good service where there is a concentration of population. This is something we will try to achieve.
With regard to the airport, I think that the hon. member is aware that if we are having so much trouble it is because we stuck to our word. The people of Malton were promised that Malton would not be expanded in terms of runways, but there is no doubt that we have to expand in terms of terminals. If runways ever have to be extended, they will be extended without increasing the noise level. It is not only the noise of an aircraft which is important, it is also the frequency of the noise. We have to take both elements into account. We must consider the number of planes landing and the noise produced by each aircraft. When Pickering is in operation there is no doubt that it will have an impact on Malton, unless by that time the number of flights has increased so much that the present situation at Malton recurs. We cannot of course foresee
May 12, 1975

exactly what type of aircraft will be in the air in 1977 or 1978, but this is something about which we will be careful.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Madam Chairman, I have two points I wish to bring to the attention of the minister at this time. The first is that of railway crossing protection. I have always been interested in railway crossing protection, and I am sure all hon. members and the minister have always recognized its importance. Since we are now in a period of depression and unemployment, why could the government not start a concerted program, and an increased and enlarged program to instal railway crossing protection devices? In my riding alone we had two allocated for installation recently on CNR crossings, and there are two more crossings urgently requiring protection, one at the Forest Mills CPR crossing in Lennox and Addington county, Richmond township, and another at Glen Tay on the same line of the CPR in Bathurst township, Lanark county. I remind the minister that it would seem to be a good idea for us to press for more railway crossing signal devices.
My second point is a very unpleasant thing to bring up, but it is in regard to public safety, and I think it should be made known to the House and to the minister. I spoke to the minister some time ago about the Ernestown wreck last December 20 on the main line of the CNR at about 8.25 p.m. in the evening, of that day, where a westbound passenger train, No. 45, and an eastbound manifest freight, No. 318, were in a head-on collision. That collision took a total of four lives; two enginemen and a passenger lost their lives at the scene, and a fourth person died about a month later.
The blood of one of the engineers was analysed as having an alcohol content of .08. This was revealed as the result of an autopsy. This is the level of impairment recognized in highway traffic cases. In this age of increased use of all kinds of transportation, those who use the systems take it for granted that the person driving is sober, whether he be in charge of a train, bus, boat or aircraft.

The recommendations of the coroner's jury inquiring into the accident at Napanee are very important and I want to put them on the record for the guidance of the minister. I know he will press for these recommendations to be put into effect. The addendum to the verdict of the coroner's jury stated in part:
Train 318 proceeded at a higher than recommended speed prior to the collision. The presence of alcoholic beverages found in the engine, and the presence of alcohol as determined by an autopsy, is a probable factor in the failure of Train 318 to stop at the designated signal.
This was no doubt the cause of the head-on collision. The jury made a number of recommendations, two of which I should like to put on the record. Recommendation No. 5 reads:
To initiate a study immediately to determine the effectiveness of the General Rules of the Uniform Code of Operating Rules, the adequacy of the requirements of the rules and employee adherence thereto.
Probably the most important recommendation was No. 6 which reads:
The railways should set up standard surveillance procedures to monitor the fitness of train employees reporting for duty.
Business of Supply
That is the point I wanted to make this afternoon.
Recommendation No. 9 reads:
All operating personnel should be given a more frequent medical examination which would include co-ordination tests.
That recommendation probably is not the result of the proof that alcohol had something to do with this accident. It is more or less a recommendation made in the interests of the general health of train crews.
I am sure the minister will appreciate the importance of recommendation No. 11 which reads:
The conductor should meet with his train crew prior to boarding the train.
The conductor has always been the boss of the train, and that is still the rule. If the conductor met his crew before the train left I am sure he could see to it that the rules were adhered to and these recommendations carried out and observed as to sobriety of the crew.
That is all I wanted to mention and I would respectfully ask the minister to take cognizance of these things and to consult with the CTC and the railways to make sure these recommendations are implemented.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, there is no doubt that we will get the report of the CTC on this accident. I agree entirely with the hon. member's comments on the coroner's report, although I am not sure about the effectiveness of the suggested meeting before the train leaves. I should like to discuss that and see if it is practicable. If the problem were not alcohol it might be drugs or something else, and the question is how we can control that. I really do not know. In this case it is referred to as being a probable cause of the accident, and it might happen sometimes on aircraft, which is even more dangerous. I think we should take all precautions we humanly can, but some of them are really useless. The only way is to fire the man and never let him drive a train again.
When we have the impartial inquiry suggested some people will have the almost exclusive duty of looking into the causes of accidents and their prevention. I think we can improve the system. I agree with the hon. member, and cannot put too much emphasis on what he has said.


William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Chairman, I should like to ask the minister some questions about Air Canada. We know it is a troubled airline and there is an inquiry going on at the moment. My questions are not related directly to the inquiry but to criticism of Air Canada long before the inquiry was initiated.
Certain questions have been raised by newspaper columnists and I should like to take them up with the minister now. When dealing with Air Canada in recent months has the cabinet committee refused to accept Air Canada's budget for future purchases of aircraft? If so, did Mr. Pratte, Chairman of Air Canada, refuse to give an explanation when asked about the purchases?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, we have not refused, we have agreed. I know that Air Canada cancelled ten or twelve aircraft that were on order, but they did that themselves.
The hon. member says that Air Canada is a troubled airline, and I take exception to that because it is not true.

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
Air Canada is a very good airline, one of the best. I believe that if the same kind of inquiry were made into other airlines we would find that Air Canada is better than most. We have not refused the budget of Air Canada because, if we had, it would not be flying today.


B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Dauphin had the floor.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a few more questions about Air Canada? It has been widely reported that Mr. Pratte and Mr. Baldwin have engaged in a series of running battles since 1968, or since assuming command positions. At the beginning, was not Mr. Pratte's function to plan policy and make long-range projections and was not Mr. Baldwin, as president, to run the airline? Am I correct in this? was this the general plan? I believe the appointment of Mr. Pratte was a new departure for Air Canada.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, so far as I remember the job of Mr. McGregor was split in two and we appointed a president and first vice president, or chairman of the board, I believe, exactly as we did with the CNR. The head of the railway company was Mr. MacMillan, whose job was split in two. Now Mr. Bandeen is president of operations of CNR and Mr. Taschereau is chairman of the board. Something similar was done with Air Canada.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, is the minister aware of any long-standing disagreement between those two top officials of Air Canada in the last five or six years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, no, I am not aware of all the personal relationships in our Crown corporations, as I have six or seven under my jurisdiction. If I were to decide to inquire into the personal relationships of officers, it would take up all of my time.


William Gordon Ritchie: It has been suggested that the appointment of Mr. Long has created difficulties in Air Canada, that he has been given little responsibility, and that all vice presidents have direct lines of communication to the chairman of the board. In other words, it is suggested that Mr. Pratte had assumed much greater authority than he should exercise, and that is one of the reasons why Air Canada has become involved in misadventures. Is the minister satisfied that the top management of Air Canada is satisfactory, and is he satisfied with the way Mr. Pratte has carried out his duties in Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman knows that I cannot very well answer such a question. If he were to ask me if I am happy with the

structure of Air Canada, the CNR, the seaway authority, the CTC, the Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. or the National Harbours Board, I would tell him that, generally speaking, I am not satisfied with the way Crown corporations are structured. There should be more uniformity in their makeup. I do not say they should all be exactly alike, because they do not all fill exactly the same functions. At present they are constituted in such different ways that I do not know if they are to report to me, to parliament, or to the department. They were established to fill different needs. For example, Polymer Corporation is quite different from the others. I think the makeup of some was determined largely by how Mr. C. D. Howe felt when setting them up.


Mr. Stanfield:: Shame!


Jean Marchand: I tell you Air Canada is a good airline. Is there friction between the officers of the company? I do not know, but I presume so, because all my life I have been involved with organizations and I do not know of any, including the one of which we are members, which is a model for all organizations, in which there is no friction at all.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, it has been charged that Air Canada management below the top level has been subjected to what are known as reorgs. Apparently reorg has followed reorg, if I may use the company's vernacular, and the morale of long service employees at the middle level has been damaged. Does the minister feel that this charge is correct, and is it true that Air Canada executives below the top level have been subjected to an abnormal amount of interference, which has contributed to fear among employees?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have no yardstick with which to answer such questions intelligently. I know that some people like Mr. Pratte; others think he is not good. Some people told me Mr. MacMillan is a great man; others that he is not so good. Some people told me that Mr. Sinclair is tops; others that he is a bully. I cannot make any judgment of that kind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What do people say about the minister?


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Pratte has suggested at various times that Air Canada does not compare favourably with other airlines because it flies too many short haul routes. Does the minister think the airline makes too many short haul flights, and does he plan longer hauls for the company's aircraft? Also, are tariffs to increase for short haul flights, in accordance with Mr. Pratte's suggestion?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we could have a very long discussion about how the long haul and short haul should be balanced. Because Air Canada is a Crown corporation owned by the state, it must do things that other companies do not do. For example, last year Air Canada lost about $1 million on the Montreal-Moscow route. As a state we feel we should have a link with Russia which is a very important country.
Air Canada is asked to provide certain services that we cannot ask private enterprise to provide. Therefore when
May 12, 1975

you compare the financial statement of Air Canada with another company's which does not need to meet these obligations, that is unjust.
It is true that in the airline business long hauls are much more beneficial than short hauls. Some companies prefer only long hauls, leaving the short hauls to other companies. However, Air Canada has to fulfill both jobs because we need airline service between Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. That is its duty. Even though it means a deficit, it is for the welfare of Canada. It does not have anything to do with the quality of administration of the company.


William Gordon Ritchie: If Air Canada does not find short hauls lucrative, why did it oppose the application by Nordair to fly from Montreal to Sudbury and Thunder Bay? In presenting its case Air Canada proposed fares considerably lower than Nordair which expected to have losses for three years before building up any traffic. If Air Canada does not find short hauls to its liking, why in this case did it not allow the private company to take the loss? Why did it oppose the application to the CTC?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, are we going to give the short hauls to the regional carriers, the long hauls to CP and get rid of Air Canada? That is not the way I look at it. I do not want us to be in the same situation as the United States where there are many regional airlines. If an airline that starts flying from Hamilton to Winnipeg and eventually to Regina is classed as a regional carrier, I think that is stretching the concept of region.
The problem is that the regions are not very well served. The reason is that the regional airlines want long hauls because they have jets, and with jets there is only one way to make money, that is, to have long hauls. If we are going to give the long hauls to the regional carriers, let us sell the other two airlines. Maybe we should have five national carriers in Canada. That is nonsense in this kind of country.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pratte has mentioned that he does not feel regional carriers should be involved in the charter business to any extent. He suggests that regional airlines with 707's or DC8's should give up this kind of equipment to Air Canada. Does the minister agree with Mr. Pratte that Air Canada should be the only airline with charters, and that the regionals should not be able to enter the charter business, particularly if they cannot use the 707's and DC8's which, I presume, are the large types of aircraft?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately I have not read that statement by Mr. Pratte. Possibly I could see the text. Mr. Pratte never mentioned to me that that is an objective he is trying to attain. There is another airline in Canada, Wardair, which deals exclusively with charters. We may very well have charters during the busy seasons so that the main airlines do not need to have five, six or seven large aircraft that will be used only during a short period of the year. However, I do not think there should be five or six national airlines in Canada because most of them would be bankrupt within a few years.
Business of Supply


Mr. Gendron:: Mr. Chairman, as the old saying goes: "If at first you don't succeed, try and try again." That applies, I believe, not only in literature but also in politics, since in order to reach one's objectives in politics, one must often try again. In the area that I represent, we have set ourselves the following objective: we are aiming to attempt to benefit fully from our geographical position and from our potential, to develop as fittingly as possible our part of the country.
I ask the House the following question: In the area of Windsor, in one area of Alberta or in any other area in Canada, would an unemployment rate of 30 per cent be easily accepted? Would it be accepted that municipalities, as there are some in my riding, where 90 per cent of the people live on social welfare, should have to demand positive and efficient actions from our government for the development of our country?
We have had in our area studies upon studies, more than anywhere else in Canada. The BAEQ cost $5,700,000 to the Canadian government; later on, we had various studies on transports, communications, regional economic expansion, representing expenditures of $10 million for an area of approximately 300,000 people. However, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who was minister of Regional Economic Expansion, was the first to conclude that the studies were outdated, that at the very time conclusions were arrived at, the problems were of a different nature and that those conclusions did not really solve the problems that we faced.
We still face the same problems and the member who is now speaking to you is really aware of the problems of the under-developed areas. The people who were claiming the right to an harmonious development deserved more than statements and studies, but effective measures and a real leadership. In order to run for Parliament, I demanded that the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson promise, not only as future prime minister of this country but as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, not to keep on with studies but to build a deep-sea harbour and provide for a year-round ferry service between both shores because I am one of those who, like Bossuet, believe that common sense is to be found in common people. It was believed that such was the essential tool for its proper development and that besides studies, there should be concrete projects to put an end to frustration and insure the people that the area in which they live has possibilities and that men in public life understand that.
I know that it is said in my party: Equality of opportunities to all Canadian people to benefit from the resources and advantages provided to us by this country and our political system of government. We believed that the development instrument we were asking for was essential to our development. Numerous studies had drawn the same conclusion. When we called for that project, it was not because we had ITT, Iron Ore or all kinds of big corporations backing us, but because we really wanted to benefit from our geographical advantages, from the fact that the St. Lawrence River has tremendous depths, as much as
1,000	feet, which would enable ships of the new generation to come to the inner part of this country, insure in our area a rational and normal development and revitalize all

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
the St. Lawrence Seaway, the harbour of Quebec and those of Trois-Rivieres and Montreal.
And today the objections are basically the same as when at one time development of the St. Lawrence Seaway was sought; the port of Montreal objected to it because it was cut for a terminal function and it felt that with the extension of that seaway toward Thunder Bay it could lose that function. But after the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened, the port of Montreal saw its traffic increase fivefold so that if there were difficulties afterwards it is not because the seaway interfered with its development, but on the contrary it gave it a very large boom, and one should look for the problems elsewhere.
Today, there is a new phenomenon which is the new generation of ships. Are we going to turn that same seaway, as one slogan puts it, into a speedway for ships or are we going to continue as in the past to revitalize all along its shores industrial and commercial developments. Will we be stupid enough to give progress a cold shoulder, we who in the mining and energy areas, and in many other areas-perhaps that is not so accurate-but from the stand point of our resources and their development, are so dependent upon the United States that we will also be so for both the export and import of all our products. President Nixon himself stated that he would make sure they did not depend on Canada for their imports and exports; even if they did not have the natural seaports, they would build man-made ones in order to accomodate the new generation of ships.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could illustrate the feeling of frustration that exists in my area better than by reading textually a resolution of the city council of Riviere-du-Loup, adopted on Monday May 5, 1975, which reads as follows;
Whereas the Department of Transport of Canada has already stated that the Canadian government would do nothing more for the Gros-Cacouna port as long as a serious plan would not be issued with respect to its use;
Whereas the Havre-Champlain (Scott-Misener) company is ready to carry out in Gros-Cacouna a very important project for the loading and unloading of bulk dry cargo and has for many months submitted that project to the federal as well as provincial authorities;
Whereas, after reviewing the said project, the Minister of Transport of Canada said the federal government would make no decision in that respect as long as the port policy of the government of Quebec would not be known;
Whereas the aforementioned policy has been known for over two months and whereas the premier of Quebec said publicly at the beginning of April 1975 that the government of Quebec fully supported the development of the port of Gros-Cacouna and approved of the Havre-Champlain project, which the Quebec minister of Commerce himself did several months earlier;
Whereas, in spite of all the aforementioned, the minister of Transport of Canada is still hopelessly reluctant and, according to medias, wrote very recently to the premier of Quebec and told him that the federal government would not commit itself blindly into the development of the Gros-Cacouna port, and before anything was decided, the Canadian government and the government of Quebec would have to undertake joint preliminary studies ...
Studies again-
. .. into the cost of facilities and the feasibility of a mixed (government and private) ownership system for the Gros-Cacouna port facilities; Whereas all those hesitations ...
This is a polite way of putting it when you consider the frustration that exists in my area-

... seem to indicate that the federal government, rather than approving a job creating project, prefers to see 15 to 30 per cent of the people able to work collect unemploymant and welfare benefits;
Whereas the citizens of our area are fed up with studies of all kinds and know that several studies have already concluded in favour of the port of Gros-Cacouna (Brochu, Sores, Camus, Lalonde & Valois, C.D. Howe, etc. reports);
Be it therefore resolved,
Councillor Romeo Bossinotte moved
Seconded by councillor J.-Jean Dionne,
That this council: 1) urge most strongly the Minister of Transport and the government of Canada to approve immediately the Havre-Champlain project for the ferrying of bulk dry goods to the port of
Gros-Cacouna;
2) invite the Minister of Transport of Canada to come, in the last week in May or the first days of June, 1975, and meet with the municipal council and representatives of the Riviere-du-Loup Industrial Promotion Corporation, the Gros-Cacouna Port Promotion Committee and the local Chamber of Commerce, for a frank and constructive discussion about the port of Gros-Cacouna.
Mr. Chairman, my questions deal with those two resolutions: approval of the project and discussion with local authorities-


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


Rosaire Gendron: On a point of order-


B. Keith Penner: I am sorry. I assumed the hon. member had completed his speech.


Rosaire Gendron: No, Mr. Chairman, this is not a speech but a point of order. We did agree that the hon. minister's time in replying would not be counted as time taken by the hon. member who was asking the questions, so I would like the Minister of Transport to give an answer to the quite relevant questions I asked him.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned several times in the last few months, I understand that the members of the House are rather impatient, because they are anxious to see the result of our efforts not in the field of the reorganization of our Department, but of the reorientation of its economic and social philosophy.
The port system, Mr. Speaker, is one of the issues that were examined in depth. One of these studies was followed by the Scott report, because Mr. Scott was responsible for it. This report must still be dissected before it can be handed to me officially and then presented to the cabinet. I realize quite well that my hon. friend from Riviere-du-Loup is defending as always his constituents with a lot of enthusiasm and sincerity and I cannot blame him for that. However, I could not at this time state my views on the Gros-Cacouna project as long as there has been no final decision on a port development policy for Canada.
What is taking place in the area of ports is similar to what is taking place in other areas-and this is in line with a suggestion I have already made in the House-a number of ports come under the National Harbour Board,
May 12, 1975

others under port authorities or private administration, and still others under the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. We are trying to tidy up the whole port facility scheme, so that each port may serve its own purpose and refrain from destructive competitive action.
That is the problem we are faced with now and why Gros-Cacouna has yet to receive a reply. I take due note of the resolutions which have been adopted, even if I feel some of them should be redrafted, but I appreciate the reasons they were put together this way, in view of the very serious problems the area as a whole, but more specifically the Riviere-du-Loup, region is faced with.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, entering into this debate tonight on the Minister of Transport's estimates, I welcome the opportunity. The main question I should like to mention is freight rates in the interior of B.C., or the non-competitive freight rates, and whether or not they are fair; and exports into the United States and whether the transportation companies of Canada are holding their end up in this export field.
We in the interior of B.C. have been long suffering as far as freight rates are concerned, and I should like to take the few minutes at my disposal to explain some of the reasons. I have been involved in freight rates for the fruit industry of British Columbia for quite a few years but it seems we are not able to get our points of view across.
Since becoming a member of parliament I have had many representations from people in the industry in my riding, complaining and talking about freight rates and how they seem to be discriminated against. We are, of course, in a non-competitive area and it would appear that the transportation companies take whatever the traffic will bear. A couple of weeks ago when we were in Prince George hearing representations from many of the industries there, almost every organization that came before us had something to say about freight rates. It sounded exactly the same as what we had been going through in my riding for years in the fruit industry.
I had a phone call today from a businessman in my riding who did not know or realize that we were going to enter into this debate, but what he told me is similar to what has been going on for a number of years in the interior of B.C., where it would appear there is a non-competitive rate and that transportation companies take whatever the traffic will bear.
For instance, you can ship to Vancouver from eastern Canada and back to Prince George for less than you can ship through the CNR directly to Prince George. The marshalling yards in Vancouver become crowded and they have a lot of problems there resulting in the tie-up of freight. Nevertheless, with the type of competition there, you can go into Vancouver, and in fact from there into the interior, for less money than if you go directly into the interior itself.
I think the first time I was exposed to these freight rate anomalies was when I found that we could load apples in Kelowna, ship them to Winnipeg, unload them, put them in cold storage, a month or so later take them out of cold
Business of Supply
storage, load them up again, ship them to Florida, and get a rebate on the freight rates. That sort of thing was actually happening. What did we do in order to be able to get some competition? We would actually truck fruit across the border, load it on to American rail lines, send it to a border point just south of Winnipeg, unload it, put it on trucks and send it up to Winnipeg, and it would be cheaper to do so. We had to do this kind of thing to show up our situation. The businesses in B.C., most of them small businesses, were not able to do this.
The result was that we could get agreed charges. This was quite good. We could get these agreed charges until the last few years. The railways were not able to supply enough, or did not supply enough cars to hold up their end, and so the agreed charges had to go; they could not ship the percentages they agreed to ship, although they would have liked to charge for them.
In the last two or three years we have had a shortage of rolling stock to roll fruit from western Canada, British Columbia, to eastern Canada. What happens is that the market gets filled by our competitor to the south, the United States. There was never any shortage of fruit in eastern Canada, but it was not Canadian fruit, mainly because we could not get the rolling stock from the railways. Today they are negotiating with the railways for some piggyback trailers on an agreed basis.
I am sorry to say that when these people asked me last fall, "What are we going to do? Are we going to get any transportation policy? Is our government going to do something about transportation in Canada?", I had to say to them, "I am sorry but the Minister of Transport gets up in the House and says that transportation is in a mess. We have been asking questions and we have had days of debate, but I would tell you that you had better get out and do some negotiating of your own because you are not going to get much of a transportation policy as far as I can see. You have to move your fruit to market; you have a responsibility to get it there". So now they are making contracts. They are looking for contracts today, and the contracts are all in the transportation companies' favour. This is why I say that we in the interior of B.C. are having a problem with non-competitive rates. I should like to ask the minister whether he has looked into these non-competitive rates, and are they fair?
I should like to say a few things about exports to the United States of our fruit and lumber, as well as other products from British Columbia. Industries there are getting absolutely nowhere with the transportation companies in respect of exporting products to the United States. These exports are very important to Canada's balance of trade position, as I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would confirm. Are the transportation companies holding up their end in respect of these exports, making sure that we are able to get our products to the United States? Has the Minister of Transport told these transportation companies in Canada that they have a responsibility in this regard, or are the railway and transportation companies just saying there is no way that they will have a part in this?
5708

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
I can assure the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that the fruit industry in British Columbia is getting absolutely no co-operation in the export of its products to the United States. Those are the two main questions I wanted to ask today, and I hope the Minister of Transport is doing something about these situations.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, in addition to problems in respect of rates there were problems last year in the movement of fruit from the Okanagan Valley. I have been requested many times by members of parliament from that region to find boxcars in order that fruit can be exported expeditiously to the United States. However, when the hon. member states flatly that these companies did not receive any help, I suggest that is not true. I succeeded in convincing the CNR to send a certain number of boxcars for the purpose of exporting fruit from the Okanagan. Perhaps the CN did not provide as many as the industry wished, but there was a certain number sent at the request of the government, or because of the pressure of the government.
There was also a shortage of cars for the movement of lumber, as the hon. member mentioned. At that time we talked about the creation of a company to keep rolling stock in reserve so that when there are peak production periods this company could provide the rolling stock necessary, and in this way avoid any possibility of losing our markets.
The hon. member suggests that we should not rely too much on new policies because they may take a long time coming into place, or they may very well never come. Those who are aware of the history of transportation in Canada will realize that if, and I underline the word if, in a few months we can really produce a new policy in the field of transportation, we will have achieved something that has never been achieved since Confederation.
I am reminded of one inquiry on the subject of pilotage. In that case it took Mr. Justice Bernier six years to produce his report. I think probably he is entitled to his pension.


An hon. Member:: So are you.


Jean Marchand: Well, not yet. The report of the MacPherson Commission, as well as reports in respect of other inquiries, took years to produce, and years before we had any new policies on transportation. Of course you can say that you do not believe a new policy will be produced until you see it. That is a normal attitude and probably the same one I would take if I were sitting in the hon. member's seat which seems, on the basis of comparison, at this moment to be better than mine.
This is one of the problems which exists and which we are trying to correct because Canada is an exporting country and it is very important for us that we have fast, accessible and cheap transportation in order to maintain our export position and protect our international markets. This is vital, but of course transportation alone cannot accomplish this. If our ports are paralyzed because the grain handlers decide not to load the grain, we have problems. We in Canada should not have the kind of problems we had two years ago, which was a good year for fruit and a good year for lumber. At that time it was

impossible to provide enough cars to move total production. This is one of the difficulties we are trying to solve. You may not believe that we will succeed. I have no evidence to produce in support of my belief that we will, other than my good faith that we will succeed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I must say that at first sight, I like the procedure now being tried out in the House. It allows members to set forth problems that are peculiar to each of our areas and to take stock of the problems of interest to their area. I shall mention in support of my statement the remarks made by the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) a few moments ago. I think that the manner in which he has stated the problem of concern to him and to the entire population proves that our present procedure makes for a truly open discussion. Every member in the House tonight and every member who will read Hansard tomorrow may appreciate the seriousness of our proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is responsible for a large department since it deals with surface, water and air transportation. The minister is no more amphibious than the member now speaking. The minister must be constantly aware of transportation problems and it is not always easy to solve them in a few words. It is obvious that he needs numerous officials. Besides, we have proof of this tonight in the House. There are some on the floor of the House and there are probably two dozens in the galleries who are following the debate. The minister is not in a position to know them all; it would be asking too much from him. However, they must trust him.
It happens that in his department like in others, some bureaucrats take themselves too seriously and think that the Department of Transport is their own business. They forget that members of Parliament are answerable to the people.
Having said this, I should like to take advantage of the consideration of the Transport estimates to deal with a problem which is not new, namely the dredging of the channel the water from the St. Lawrence to the Montmag-ny wharf. Last year-and the minister will surely remember, when the Department of Transport estimates were under consideration, I made representations in that connection and the minister had seemed willing then to settle this problem. I hope he is still favorably inclined. That dredging matter, although often brought up in this House by the members who preceded me here as representatives of my riding, has never been solved even if it has repeatedly been discussed; but I have every reason, I say this quite sincerely, that we are nearing a settlement, judging from the dialogues and exchanges of views we had in committees, or on occasion when I met various ministers. Still, and I say this without wanting to offend anyone, everyone holds to his opinions, according to the studies I have made; it has even happened, when the file was sent to the Department of Transports for a quick perusal, that the officials mainly stressed disadvantages of the situation, its non profitability, with the various responsible ministers. And then, it was required to show what benefits might result from the dredging of that channel for the development of some natural resources in that area.
May 12, 1975

I think that the various departments in the federal government were ready to cooperate, it would be possible to solve this problem and ensure that the development of the area between Quebec and the Gaspe peninsula, I mean the south shore of wich the city of Montmagny can properly be considered as the capital, since it is located in the centre of that area!
Until now, Mr. Chairman, in every development project that has been implemented under the various federal policies or with the cooperation of the province of Quebec, the south shore has always been overlooked. In the studies conducted, the experts have always considered Quebec City and the surrounding area. Then, they flew over the south shore in order to go and study the needs of the Gaspe area, as I know that there are also needs to meet there.
However, the south shore is not included in the area surrounding Quebec City, being located many miles away, nor is it close to the Gaspe peninsula, as it is even farther; it is a different area and I ask that it be considered as such and that special projects be designed for that area in order to ensure its development. I think that it will never be able to develop further if action is not taken to fully develop all its resources. There is no need to mention them all, they are numerous. That area has a tremendous potential for touristic development; the many islands located in the St. Lawrence river are part of the area and better communications are needed to reach them and make the most of them.
I also wish to remind you that Montmagny and the vicinity is a paradise for migratory birds, and particularly the snow goose. It will be recalled that the mayor of Montmagny, Dr. Gauthier, and all his council, in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce and every organization in the area, started in Montmagny an annual Snow Goose Festival. I wish everyone could see at this season, from approximately 300 feet behind my residence, thousands of snow geese currently migrating to their summer nesting grounds, from which they will be returning next fall. This is an industry that should be expanded. But in order to do that, outsiders coming into the area should have access to the islands, in the fall, to hunt snow geese. This is a tremendous sport. Unfortunately, transport facilities are inadequate.
Since the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) is inclined to approve the renovation of the Montmagny wharf, I should like this evening to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is possible to very seriously consider whether, in turn, the Montmagny channel could not be dredged, so that the hunting and tourist industry may be further developed, and whether also a marina could not be built. I know this is not his responsibility, but somebody must take the lead to make things possible. Sheltered waters are needed so that small craft can take refuge during storms. This would be a suitable location if it was developed.
Second, I would ask the same thing I requested last year, and I am convinced I will have an answer since this item is again included in the estimates. I noted last year in the estimates a quite significant amount for the improve-
Business of Supply
ment of the channel opposite Cap-aux-Oies. I do not know if the minister remembers that.
In any event, there was amazement that $2 million were allotted for the improvement of the channel there. If I am misinformed, I hope I shall be corrected, but I am convinced this will be done this summer. I had an opportunity to discuss with pilots. I was told that the river is approximately 35 feet deep at that place. I wonder why this year a $925 million amount is again included in the estimates for 1975-1976. The sum of $925 million has also been forecasted for future years. If this is necessary, I do not object. It is very obvious that the channel must be maintained. Since the votes are here, if the Minister could use his authority to transfer these votes, which will be used to improve the channel, which would then be deep enough to allow normal navigation, maybe the channel from the river to the dock at Montmagny could be dredged.
Those are the few considerations that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister, very seriously and with a lot of heart, because I know that he is very concerned about the development of the area to which I have referred, like all the other areas of the country, and it is on behalf of all the organizations, which you will excuse me for not naming, that I am making this request; I am the spokesman for all the organizations which have already been named, and of which about thirty at least have been asking the same thing for many years. I hope that everyone is not wrong at the same time. I know in advance that the Minister will tell me: "Yes, this will take money". I understand this and so does everyone else, but if we wait for some garantee about the profitability of the service before doing anything, I think that we shall never do anything because there are public services now in operation which were supposed to be profitable and each year, the Minister has to come to Parliament and ask for new credits to set them afloat, to pay their deficits. It would not be any worse in Montmagny. I know that it would not be any better, but it would not be any worse.
I sincerely ask if it is possible to do something. I think that the government of the Province of Quebec would be willing to co-operate, as well as the Minister of Public Works and also the authorities of the city of Montmagny.
It is through co-operation that we will succeed in solving that issue and in providing the South Shore area with proper public utilities so that the standard of living and the per capita income of the South Shore population, which are unfortunately the lowest in Canada, may be improved. I would now ask the hon. minister to make comments on that subject.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it was a real pleasure for me to hear again my good friend, the hon. member for Bellechasse who is asking again that there be dredging operations around the Montmagny wharf in order to allow better circulation between that town and the islands which are an extension to the Orleans Island.
The hon. member is right when he talks about the snow geese. It is a remarkable spectacle. It is not necessary to go there hunting, seeing them only is worth the trip. I believe that in such circumstances maybe he should make
29561-18V2

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
representations not only to the Ministry of Transport which has a marginal responsibility, but also to the Department of Tourism, in Quebec City, and to the Department of Public Works. The latter is concerned with the maintenance of wharves and small harbours.
He could also contact the Department of the Environment which is in charge of harbours for small boats. It is a complicated issue but surely he could do something about it and, in my opinion, I think that by making representations to those departments, he will succeed in getting the water level around the Montmagny wharf raised in order to allow the boats to come there and to visit one of the most attractive towns in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, to get his figures straight when he reads the budget, he should read $925,000 instead of $925 million; it is not quite the same thing. The total amount is $2,100,000: we did some dredging at Cap-aux-Oies, but there has been some filling up and efforts must be made to bring the depth of the channel down to 40 and 45 feet at high tide. If the hon. member can transform the $925,000 into $925 million, I promise we will do some dredging at the Montmagny wharf.
In any event, he will certainly get a sympathetic ear; but this is not something I can assure him of as a project we will achieve solely with assistance from the Department of Transport.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize to the hon. minister if I said $925 million. That was certainly a mistake because I did read $925,000. I would not want the House to get the impression that I intended to falsify the figures in the budget. My apologies, and I thank the minister for having pointed it out to me.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Chairman, I want to use my 15 minutes, or part thereof, largely in asking the minister some questions about my part of the country. I was delighted, as were a number of my constituents, about the announcement by the federal government that it would be building a railway link between Ashcroft, Cache Creek and Clinton. This will be a link between the CNR and the CPR to the B.C. rail.
Many of my colleagues from the prairies, and on both sides of the House, realise that the Fraser canyon can be a very difficult bottleneck with respect to the two rail lines, especially during the winter time and spring break-up. There are often slides which can hold up trains going down the Fraser canyon for long periods of time. This link has much potential for the economy of this country and for the economy of that part of my constituency, and I would like the minister to inform the House of some target dates. I would like to know what schedule he is following now, what kind of work might be taking place at this time, and the target completion date. That is mostly what we are concerned about. We would like to have some idea of the framework in which the Government of Canada will be moving.
Another question concerning the people of Kamloops relates to terminal facilities. Kamloops is one of the most rapidly growing cities in the province of British Columbia,

and the number of passengers moving through the Kamloops airport in the past few years has probably been the most rapidly growing in the country, so the terminal facilities have really become quite inadequate over the past couple of years in particular. There have been some additions made to the facilities, which have been quite helpful both for onloading and offloading, but these are only temporary additions.
I have had a number of discussions with the minister's regional officials who have been very helpful, and I know they have a number of good plans on the drawing boards for terminal facilities in Kamloops. One date we had been kicking around, with regard to having the new facilities built, was 1977. I would like the minister to give me some indication of these possible new facilities in Kamloops and to advise whether that 1977 target date can be met or is realistic. Perhaps this was just in the very preliminary planning stages in his department, but I want to stress that it is very necessary that we have new and adequate terminal facilities in Kamloops as soon as possible.
The other area I was talking about with the minister's regional officials, and upon which I received co-operation, was the terminal facilities at Quesnel. They also had a number of good plans on the drawing boards for Quesnel. They just obtained jet flight service in there, Pacific Western Airlines, not too long ago. It is a service which has been very much needed, and it is warmly received by the people of Quesnel and that part of the Cariboo. I would like also to know what time schedule the minister and his department have for new terminal facilities in Quesnel.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, the negotiations between the federal government, the B.C. government, BCR, which is owned by the B.C. government, and the CNR have been long and complicated. I know there is an understanding and it is supposed to go on. I am not even sure that the formal agreement has been signed yet. If the hon. member wants the target as far as the Clinton-Ashcroft bypass is concerned, it is not supposed to go beyond 1978, so the target of 1977 is about right. This is something which is urgent and essential to the development of the region and for the normal circulation of goods in the direction of the B.C. coast and ports.
Unfortunately I did not catch the second question. Would the hon. member mind repeating it?


Len Marchand: The second question related to the new terminal facilities in Kamloops. I mentioned that I had a number of productive conversations with the minister's regional officers who had been very co-operative. There are some good plans on the drawing board for new facilities. In casual conversations the officials told me to look at 1977 for the new facilities there, but this was not their decision and it had to go to Ottawa for confirmation. The facilities were improved recently for loading and offloading, but still they are only temporary facilities. We need permanent facilities in Kamloops, and in Quesnel as well, and I believe the plans are also on the drawing board.
May 12, 1975


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member does not mind I will take that question as notice and let him know tomorrow exactly what is the target.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, in opening I should like to say to the minister that I fully sympathize with him for all the reports with which he has to deal. There have been a multitude of them in the period since confederation. Unfortunately they have not been followed by policies. The reports have emphasized the problems which exist nationally and regionally, and it is now imperative to have policies.
There are some questions I should like to put to the minister. First of all, what is the depth of investigation by the minister or his staff into the branch line abandonment proposal of the railroads in respect of communities which may become isolated and put out of business if a branch line is abandoned? Secondly, what is the information on the revenue which will accrue to the main lines if the wholesale abandonment of branch lines becomes the policy of the two national railroad companies? Have these two questions been given proper appraisal?


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member talking about branch lines generally?


Fred Alward McCain: That is right-not any specific one but just the basic policy on branch line abandonment, its effect on the community abandoned, and eventually on the traffic on the main line.


Jean Marchand: There is a definite policy as far as the branch lines in the western part of Canada are concerned where 12,000 miles are frozen till the year 2000, and 6,000 miles are going to be reviewed by a commission so that we will know exactly what we are going to do with them. They are not going to be abandoned before the end of 1975, however, and what happens after that will depend on the report. There are about 500 miles which everybody agreed should be abandoned for all practical purposes.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Chairman, I do not think the minister intended to evade my question. He has given me the position at the moment on branch line abandonment as far as policy is concerned. I should like to know if there is an in-depth study on two aspects of the consequences of abandonment-first, the consequence to the community located on a line to be abandoned and, second, the consequences on total traffic on main lines which have depended on the branch lines as sources of traffic or feeder lines for the main lines. Is this under study? I have never seen it mentioned in any report relating to transportation.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I am not sure that I understand the question clearly. No branch line can be abandoned in Canada without approval by the CTC. This is not a policy but is the procedure to be followed in the abandonment of an active branch line. As far as the policy of the government is concerned, this has been talked about at the WEOC Conference. I do not want to evade the hon. member's question, but was he referring to the section of 12,000 miles, 6,000 miles, or 500 miles?


Fred Alward McCain: There are areas of Canada which have been served by one line or the other and part of the
Business of Supply
industrial background of those communities is still dependent upon the railroad and will be damaged if the lines are abandoned. I should like to know what happens to the main line if producers of traffic on the branch lines go out of business?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I reserve the right to correct myself tomorrow if I am mistaken, but the information I have at the moment is that the mandate of the inquiry is not limited to the western provinces. It is to make a study of all Canada and see what the economic impact will be if some branch lines are abandoned, whether in the maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario or the western provinces. If my information is not correct, I will rectify it tomorrow.


Fred Alward McCain: I should like to point out that the area of the Saint John River valley, the Annapolis valley and other areas in Nova Scotia have been served by railroads. Instead of bringing forward applications for branch line abandonment, why do not railroads, all of them, make it their policy to seek out business? Without business they will be forced to abandon lines. I suggest that the policy of the government should put the onus on railways to search for business in areas in which they intend to abandon lines. Other enterprises, whether they are banks, chemical companies, fertilizer companies or beer companies, pursue business. This approach seems to be totally lacking on the part of our railway system.
Why should businesses-I do not expect the minister to answer but I wish the department would consider this- which are not familiar with the workings of the transport industry need to buy their own truck units in order to deliver their own products to their own customers, especially as many of these businesses have been served by the railways? This does not involve rates; this involves service. Service which was available to some of these businesses 10 or 15 years ago is no longer available, although the railway lines still run past their front doors. It seems to me that in seeking a solution to the difficulties of railways the minister should ask why so many companies have bought their own trucks?
Why does the Viau Company have its own trucks on the road? Why do Humpty Dumpty and Home Hardware have their own trucks on the road? Are these companies making money from trucking, or from manufacturing and merchandising? Further, are these companies, by entering the transport business, able better to serve themselves and at less cost than would be the case if we had a better rail transport system? Why should the publicly-owned CNR let this business slip out of its hands while other people, less experienced in the transport business, deliver products they manufacture, not because they want to, but because they must?
If the study previously mentioned is to be concerned about the east as well as the west, will guidelines be laid down regarding the consideration of the Maritimes or Atlantic area? Does the minister have any idea as to how profitable the CNR or CPR find Maritime region business? Also does the minister know, from cost submissions, whether the railways are making more or less profit than

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
they ought to make, and what assurance can the minister give that the level of service in future will not fall below the level presently being supplied? What is the policy for improving service to Kelowna, Selkirk, Prince George and various other areas of the country? Can the minister comment on this question? After all, our economy cannot function adequately in the absence of a transportation policy. Such a policy is needed to help the economy.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, perhaps my answer of a few minutes ago was wrong. If the jurisdiction of the commission is to be limited to western Canada, under our transport legislation a similar duty devolves on the CTC. This means that CN should apply to the CTC, and the CTC has to conduct an inquiry in order to justify any decision it might take. I will inquire and find out exactly the mandate of the special commission that was set up by the federal government.
The hon. member asked if the railways are making money in the Maritimes. I know that we are subsidizing the Maritimes.


Fred Alward McCain: And the west.


Jean Marchand: Yes, and the west. But the railways are not making money. This year they are all losing money. I would be surprised to learn they are making money in the Maritimes, but I will check and give the hon. member that information tomorrow. At the same time I will look into the other matters the hon. member put to me.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Chairman, will the minister also ask the department to examine why so many people are going into their own trucking business, because once many of these companies were served by the railroads? How can they afford to do their own trucking, and why cannot the railways, the CNR, the CPR and other railways, do it more cheaply, especially when the rail lines already run past the front doors of these firms?
It has been recognized that an adequate transport system for the prairie areas and the west generally, primarily a rail transport system, is imperative if the agricultural industry of the region is to survive. An adequate rail transport system is equally necessary for the survival of agriculture in Kelowna, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and elsewhere. Such areas are equally in need of an adequate rail transport system. What policies will the minister advocate in order to allow the agricultural industry in this country to continue prospering? Further, what policies will the minister bring forward in co-operation with the Minister of Agriculture and his own departmental officials to make sure that the railways serve adequately the agricultural industry of the Atlantic area, at rates which will permit agriculture to make a profit?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the policy on which we are working, which has not been completed, concerns agriculture and all other sectors. We are convinced in the department that we must have a good railway service in this country. We need that in Canada. This country is too big to rely on trucking or other modes. We need a good railway system, not only for industry but for agriculture, too.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member who is about to rise, but his time has expired.


Mr. Peters:: Madam Chairman, may I ask the minister a question concerning regional air carrier policy. I wonder if Air Canada service is to be substituted for regional carrier service in certain areas. I know the minister was interested in the Nordair application for the Ottawa-Sudbury-Thunder Bay route. Is there to be any substitution of service? I assure the minister that the flight, given present departure times, will not make money for Air Canada or anybody else. Perhaps someone could make money if the flight were at a different time. Does the minister intend to develop a new policy in this whole area, and how will we hear about it?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, the last time we made an effort to elaborate an air policy in Canada was in 1966, I believe. Of course since then conditions have changed. I do not blame those who brought in the earlier policy. They did their best. Of course no regional carriers then operated jets. The business of regional carriers was to serve certain regions. Then they bought jet aircraft, DC-8s, DC-9s, Boeing 707s and 747s, and they put pressure on the CTC for new routes. They asked that Air Canada routes be given to them because they could not make money with jet aircraft on the kinds of routes they flew. Without doubt there is no money to be made in flying a jet from Brandon to Winnipeg.


Mr. Dinsdale:: But there is from Brandon to Toronto.


Jean Marchand: They can make money by flying from Brandon to Toronto, but not by flying from Brandon to Winnipeg.
We first tried to solve the problem of international routes. We announced last year how we are dividing the world and what kind of policy we are going to follow. However, we have not yet reached the regional carriers. At this time the policy is not designed. However, we intend to have one as soon as we have taken care of other urgent problems.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Chairman, we have several problems with Air Canada. One is that it did not get all the international routes. We have two major air carriers in Canada, Air Canada and CP Air, which was probably a very bad mistake. Even France, Britain, and other countries considerably larger and more prestigious than Canada cannot afford that.
The minister stated that the regional air carriers have bought jets. That is true. They have bought them because Air Canada failed to meet the needs of travelling Canadians, particularly in the Caribbean. There is still a shortage in the Caribbean even with Wardair, Nordair, QuebecAir and Eastern Provincial.
I am sure the minister will agree that cutting out the regional carriers is not the answer. Nordair flies 727's and 737's into the Arctic. Air Canada should be doing that, but is not for two very good reasons. It does not have the planes that will fly in that area. Air Canada has bought
May 12, 1975

the wrong kind of aircraft. It is looking for prestigious international service which the Canadian people cannot afford. We are not in that field.
I have no objection if the minister wants to be a real nationalist about this. I would be quite happy if tomorrow he put in a system that would meet the needs of the Canadian public for air service with one airline called Air Canada. It has all the machinery. There is no doubt about it. It has enough vice-presidents to fly the damn things, if only they were capable of flying. However, they will have to provide the kind of aircraft that regional carriers are supplying.
I am pleased that after the problem of international routes has been solved, the minister is going to look into the regional problem. I suggest that when he does that, he look at another airplane for Air Canada. He should be buying the Dash 7. I understand that is a large Otter. Air Canada should be buying 30 or 40 passenger planes.
If we are going to run a Canadian airline, it should use jets. We should be using jets to fly these routes.
Has the minister given any consideration to security costs at airports? We are not catching anybody. I have heard that one or two members of parliament carried guns through security in one or two major cities just to try it. The system did not work out. I can explain, to anyone who wants to know, how to beat it. It is very easy to do.
I have to spend a lot of time in North Bay where I make my air travel connections. There are ten RCMP officers there. They receive at least $10,000 a year. That comes to $100,000 a year. Air Canada hires Pinkerton people. There are three main flights a day. I do not know how that kind of expenditure can be justified. One RCMP officer would be enough. The only purpose for their being there is to back up the Pinkerton people.


Erik Nielsen: North Bay is a bad place.


William Arnold Peters: The same is true in Sudbury, Timmins, Calgary and Edmonton. I never went through a search like that before. They made everyone almost strip because there was a girl who was going through with gilt buttons on her coat. If the machine will pick up the gilt, it will pick up anything.
What are we doing? Are we training people for the Olympics? Is this why we are training the RCMP? I do not see why we need ten RCMP officers, not in the whole North Bay area, but just at the airport. I rode on a Cessna 402. No one is going to take that very far. I often wonder if it will make it to Ottawa. The Otters will not go very far. They are the planes which go through North Bay most. Air Canada has two main flights a day with a DC-9. Has the minister given any consideration to the cost of security? This seems to be away out of line. We are not getting anything for our money.
One of the RCMP officers said he did not like his job. He said it would be fine if they would move him somewhere else where there is something to do because he does not like sitting around all day drinking the bad coffee they have in the terminal. North Bay, as the minister is aware, has been changed to eastern air defence. In case of bad weather, Earlton becomes the emergency auxiliary field. Has the minister given any consideration to updating the
Business of Supply
buildings at Earlton? There are 24 hour weather and radio personnel there, as well as a terminal. All the buildings those three agencies use are pre-war. They were built about 1935 or 1936. Even if it is just to save on heating costs, a small terminal could be built at a fairly reasonable cost. Has the minister given any consideration to this?


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I do not know if I heard the hon. member correctly. He said that Air Canada should go jet all the way. At the same time he said it should buy Dash 7's which are not jet, but turbo.


An hon. Member:: They are not flying.


Jean Marchand: They are still being tested, but they are flying. Apparently they are good planes. Anyway, we will wait and see.
In 1965 or 1966, it was in the policy I referred to a few minutes ago, Air Canada agreed to give certain lines to the regional carriers. That is why lanes were given to Quebec Air, UAWA in British Columbia and TransAir in Winnipeg. They were not given to Nordair, but all the others. It was the policy of the government at that time, rightly or wrongly, and I have my opinion on this, to take away from Air Canada a certain number of lines in order to allow the regional carriers to make a profit. After that, they succeeded in stretching their routes and that is when they started buying the jets. When you buy a DC-9, even if it is a short conventional one, you need to have room. Otherwise you cannot economically operate such an aircraft. At this time Quebec Air has two DC-8's which it purchased recently for a charter to Europe. TransAir has a 747.


Erik Nielsen: It is Wardair.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member is correct, it is not TransAir, but Wardair that has the 747.
In the United States they believed for a century that it was good to have as many railways as they could build, as many airlines as they could create. What happened? Half of them went bankrupt. Now even Pan-American Airlines is in trouble but has been saved by the banks. I would not like to see, one day, in our lap or in the lap of the opposition, one or two airlines which could not make a profit asking for a subsidy or new routes in order to keep going. I do not mind if we have to intervene more directly, but I believe it is preferable for the Canadian people to have healthy airlines which know what are their limits. Right now they do not know so they take chances, and one day the taxpayers are going to be called upon to pay the bill.


William Arnold Peters: What about the cost of security and the minister's ideas as to its value?


Jean Marchand: We do not seem to have any problem at the moment. We do, of course, collect knives and articles of that kind from luggage. I do not think Canada is the most dangerous spot. The United States may be. After all, it is easy to come from the United States to Canada, and we do not want Canada to become a haven for hijackers. This leaves us with the necessity of putting some kind of security measures into place. I can tell hon.

May 12, 1975
Business of Supply
members that I am one who is probably the most allergic to these searches. Each time I come through, they do not even recognize me and I am screened like the others. When the hon. member talks about ten members of the RCMP in Thunder Bay or Sudbury-


William Arnold Peters: North Bay.


Jean Marchand: They were there
accidentally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Or because the hon. member was there! I know that in Montreal, though it is not as big as that city, I never see more than two at the same time, and I go there every week. In Toronto I have never seen more than two or three. Some are teaching, and some are backing up those who are making the search.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Chairman, I have a series of questions which may not seem important to the minister but which loom rather large in my constituency, which depends so heavily on communications facilities. At the outset though, may I say I fully endorse the security measures being taken at airports throughout our country. If I had any complaint to make it would be against the stupidity of members of parliament, of all people, trying to test the system. All that has done is bring the security personnel down around our necks. I find myself now being recognized and singled out for a more thorough search than ever before simply because of the stupidity of some hon. members.
I should like to ask the minister to give me a status report on the terminal building at Whitehorse, which has been on the book for so many years but which has still not got off the ground. I want to ask the minister why his department is phasing out the radio ranges in the remoter areas where, in my view, they are still vitally needed. The latest announcement concerns the elimination of radio ranges in Whitehorse and Tasland and the replacement of those ranges by non-directional beacons. The beacons are fine for getting from one point to another but they help very little in getting down through cloud to a safe landing.
Would the minister inform me as to the status of the installation of emergency locater transmitters in aircraft registered for use above the 60th parallel? I believe the time has passed when the law requires installation of ELTs in all aircraft operating in sparsely settled areas. Has this been accomplished?
I want the minister to give me a report with respect to a matter which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, that is, the setting up of an independent body for the purpose of investigating aircraft accidents. This has been promised, and it is long overdue. I know the minister is in favour of it. It simply does not look right, for example, in the case of the last fatal aircraft accident in the north in which Panarctic was involved, that one of the major shareholders of the company, the government, should be the accident investigating body.
I want to ask the hon. gentleman when new and improved navigational aids will be provided at the airfield at Faro where traffic demands an IFR facility. I wish to complain vigorously about the placing of electric power

lines across the Yukon River at Whitehorse across the only available stretch of water which can be used for emergency landings by aircraft which have developed trouble on take-off from Schwatka Lake. These wires prevent safe take-offs and landings on that admirable stretch of river which is so essential to safe operating out of the lake terminal at Whitehorse.
I want to ask him, too, to exert whatever influence he may have with his colleague the Minister of Finance to get rid of that 10 per cent tax which has been placed on all new aircraft being imported into Canada for private owners, under the guise of some sort of fuel conservation plan. I believe there is not a member here familiar with general aviation who would object to the removal of this tax. Putting it in a more positive way, I believe every member, in all parties, with any knowledge of the general aviation industry, opposes the continuation of this tax. The minister should exert whatever influence he can to get it removed, because to an area such as ours where aircraft are so vital for getting around the country, it means a good deal to us to have 10 per cent added on to the cost of an aircraft.
I want to register my complaint, in what I hope will be taken as a non-bigoted fashion, in regard to the debate now going on with respect to the use of French and English in aircraft communications, air-to-air and air-to-ground. I think this can only have one result, namely, the impairment of safety standards in air transport. There is an international language of the air, and this country has been a signatory to it through ICAO for years now, and that language is English. If it were French, then it would be French; but it so happens that before the real debate on bilingualism developed in this country English was made the international language for air transport, and it should remain that way.
There are two accidents that can be directly attributable to the confusion caused recently over which language to use in the minister's own province. It is ludicrous to think that we may have French as well as English in air transport in Canada. This would mean rewriting, for instance, the international phonetic alphabet, which is now a combination of Latin and English words, which to me is silly.
If this were carried the whole way, we might find Air Canada and other international airline pilots doing cockpit checks in both official languages, which I think would be silly indeed. We should stick to safety standards and forget about the bilingualism debate so far as air transport is concerned.
I would also ask the minister to bring me up to date with respect to the rail studies in which the CNR is involved, so far as transportation in the Yukon territory is concerned. Studies have been undertaken in conjunction with other carriers and I should like to know whether those studies are ready to be reported; if not, when they will be reported; and what the feasibility is of interior rail into the Yukon connecting with the south.
Finally I want to register a complaint about telecommunications, something which falls within this minister's jurisdiction. His colleague, one of the "Three Musketeers", the Minister of Communications, came up to the Yukon on
May 12, 1975

a business visit a short while ago and, I will not say as a result of the visit, but coincidentally after he left, telephone rates went up. Telephone services in certain areas were discontinued, and other operators got bills that they had never received before for their telephone services.
The minister does not know about this. I was hoping he would be here, as he was this afternoon, so he would be made aware of it. I have written to him, but I dare say my letters never get to his level in the ministry.
There are emergency telephone services operated by CN Telecommunications which are now being cut out. These telephone services provide a very essential service. One might run across a highway in the Yukon where there has been an accident and there is no way of communicating and getting medical or other aid. These telephone services should remain for emergencies, if nothing else.
I want here to register a personal objection. Because all parts of the north are not blessed with dial telephones or the push button type, in the remoter areas we have to use radio telephone service. One of the most common in use is the single sideband SBX-11. A unit like this would require an initial investment of about $1,000, which the owner has to shell out in order to provide himself with communications. In my own case I have one in one of the remoter areas of the Yukon, and I use this unit for passing on weather information to the minister's department and for passing on information regarding lost aircraft, both to his department and to the RCMP-all for nothing as far as I am concerned.
I have now been told that in order to carry my identifier on the books of his department-that, in radio communications terms, is the telephone number, which in my case is Sierra Queen 950-I have to pay $7 a month. I think that is carrying bureaucracy a little too far. It seems to me that I should be charging for the service that I have been rendering his department, which will cost a good deal more in terms of saving time and money than what his department is charging me, $7 a month. One little vital piece of information that could be passed over my unit could save his department and the government thousands and thousands of dollars spent on searches.
If it is the intention of his department, or of CN Telecommunications, to insist upon a rental for my identifier to use CN-T facilities for telephone service, then I will discontinue the service, and I know of dozens of people like me who will do the same. Instead they will not carry CN identifiers; they will carry identifiers and communicate with mining companies and people in the air transport business that do not charge them for doing so.
Having said that, I do not expect any lengthy answers tonight, but generally speaking I think the minister's department is doing, apart from the few exceptions I have mentioned, an adequate job in the north. I extend to him a personal invitation as minister, having national responsibilities, to visit the Yukon and take a first hand look at the operations of his department there. I should like him to be my personal guest and I will show him things that I am sure will surprise him.


Jean Marchand: Madam Chairman, I thank the hon. gentleman for his last words. It does not happen very often that we in this chamber feel we are in a
Business of Supply
civilized world, so it was good to hear that. I would not cross the floor for it, but it was nice anyway.
I will not be able in two minutes to answer all the hon. member's questions. Some are a little too technical. I am not highly specialized in directional and non-directional beacons. I happen to know what they are, but I do not know enough about them to make a speech in the House and to say whether the hon. member is right or wrong. Perhaps tomorrow I can say something about that matter.
As far as an independent accident board is concerned, the hon. member is right. We are exercising pressure on the government House leader to bring in legislation as soon as possible to set up an impartial board that will inquire into causes of accidents. The accident he referred to indicates that we need an independent body, not because I think anything irregular happened but because at the time everyone felt a little uneasy. We will do what we can here in co-operation with the other House leaders.
As for the rate study, as the hon. member knows, it has been completed. We know it is feasible to have a railway going up the Mackenzie valley.


Erik Nielsen: What about the one for the Yukon?


Jean Marchand: I understand that study is not yet completed. The other one is, but the one for the Yukon is on its way and is about to be completed.
With regard to the use of English and French, that is a debate in itself. It is too delicate a subject on which to throw out a few words just before ten o'clock. This would risk giving a false interpretation of what the hon. member said, or a false interpretation of what I think should happen in this regard.
If the hon. member does not mind, I will call it ten o'clock. I hope tomorrow to be in a position to answer the technical points he has raised.


B. Keith Penner: It being ten o'clock, consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport in committee of the whole is interrupted in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 7.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of Standing Order 58 the committee of the whole will continue and conclude consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport at the next sitting of the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1975
Adjournment Debate

Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, may I say that the debate tonight is on a matter that I feel has been an exercise in dereliction of duty on the part of a federal-provincial committee appointed by both levels of government, that is, the federal Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, to investigate the effects of ice damage on the west coast of Newfoundland in the year 1974 which destroyed many hundreds of lobster traps, and in turn resulted in the loss of livelihood for many hundreds of fishermen.
I would ask on behalf of these aggrieved fishermen how, in the name of fairness, the committee could declare certain zones on the west coast of Newfoundland which they determined should qualify, to the exclusion of other areas where it has become obvious that ice damage also existed, damage as serious in nature as that in those zones declared should qualify by the committee?
The damage existed along a coastline of some 300 to 400 miles in an almost straight line from Cape John in the southern part of the west coast to the most northerly part known as Cape Norman, yet that committee, in its questionable wisdom, declared an area almost half way between the two points, from Cape St. Gregory to Cape Norman; in other words, it declared an imaginary line which is not only questionable but smacks of discrimination against certain groups of fishermen. The committee acted as judge and jury without even the common courtesy of giving the said fishermen the opportunity to question that decision.
In the thrust of my effort to find out the basis for the declaration of the qualifying zones it has been impossible for me to get fair answers, beyond the normal bureaucratic answers from both levels of government that the decision was made by a federal-provincial committee. This is not good enough and is entirely unacceptable.
This unacceptability prompted me to investigate the ice conditions which existed during the 1974 lobster season from dates before, during, and well into the lobster season. I am satisfied as a result of Ministry of Transport reports, which I have today sent to the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), that there is evidence which shows beyond a shadow of doubt that ice conditions in the excluded area were as fierce or, if not as fierce, were such that they warranted consideration for compensation which heretofore has been denied those fishermen in the Bay of Islands, Port au Port and Bay St. George areas.
I have at hand ice condition reports for 17 days, from April 16, 1974, four days before the April 20 lobster season opening, to May 14, some 28 days into the season, and during a period when the execution of the lobster fisheries is at its best.
Let me put on record just a few of these reports. On April 18, just two days before the season opened, there was close pack ice from Cape St. George along the west coast of Newloundland, which is right in the middle of the excluded zone. On April 22, the west coast of Newfoundland remained congested from Cape St. George northward, two days after the opening of the season and after the
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
laying of traps. On April 25 and 26, the report states that congestion of ice remained in the areas of Cape St. George, St. Georges Bay and Corner Brook. The report states that on April 29 there were strings and patches of ice in St. Georges Bay. On May 1 there was open pack ice in St. Georges Bay from Port au Port peninsula to Bay of Islands, on shore ice drift was increasing the ice concentration to open pack with a narrow strip of close pack ice across the entrance to the bay. On May 2 the report states that the west coast of Newfoundland remained heavily congested from Cape St. George, and with onshore winds this could cause some concern to west coast ports for the next week or ten days.
Finally, I will use only one more example of the report of May 10 which stated that open to very open pack ice was found north of the Port au Port peninsula extending 60 miles west of south head. The strait of Belle Isle was not recommended for commercial navigation at this time.
It is obvious then, Madam Speaker, that the reports from which I read substantiate the conditions which existed. They confirm that the committee was lax in its duty to declare the zones where damage occurred, and to support the requests of the fishermen in the area of concern. I hope the minister, who I know will be sympathetic, and his parliamentary secretary will review the reports that I have sent to him, and will cause a further investigation to be carried out and a review of the facts. If unfairness existed, I am sure he will not only rectify the situation but demand an ccounting by the committee to determine the reasons for their decision which is not helping the fast deteriorating fishing industry. I hope the anser will be satisfactory, both to me and to the fishermen in the areas concerned.


Len Marchand: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. He made his comments in a manner which, as usual, has been frank and informative. I think the hon. member made some new points tonight when he said that perhaps some errors have been overlooked by the provincial government and the federal government. I can assure him that the new information he has brought to the attention of the minister and the House tonight will be thoroughly investigated.
I know it has always been the position of the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) to be fair and just, and to do the right thing by the fishermen. That is the reputation he has gained so far as minister responsible for fisheries. I know he has been very co-operative in a number of ways and has tried to respond to the problems of fishermen.
However, I should say also that this disaster comes largely under provincial jurisdiction, a disaster which was declared as such by bhe province. The province must have made a request to the federal government for action, and we responded to the provincial request.
I should say in closing that we are always mindful of and willing to respond to provincial requests, but I hope we can take another look at this problem and perhaps we will find that some of the fishermen who have been left out should not have been left out of the program. We will really take another look at this.
May 12, 1975


HEALTH-ASBESTOS LEVELS IN LAKE SUPERIOR-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STOP ASBESTOS DISCHARGES AT SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me apologize for not being here promptly at ten o'clock, but I was at a committee meeting. I can recall one time, when I was younger, driving home from Calgary to my home in High River listening to the radio and knowing where two different radio station outposts were. I was amazed that what I thought was the same man could be heard within instants on two different radio stations. I was not aware then that you could record and can announcements, as did that man. I cannot move as quickly as he did in getting from committee to the House, and I apologize for being late. I hope I did not cause too much concern in the House.
My question relates to a question raised on April 17 by me with the Acting Minister of the Environment or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I raise it again now in the adjournment debate not so much because of the substance of the reply but because of the attitude toward the House and toward serious questions on matters of human health and the environment which was displayed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his answers.
My question was:
What immediate action are the federal officials taking to stop asbestos discharges at Silver Bay, Minnesota which it has recently been revealed are leading to asbestos levels in Lake Superior which are higher than allowable and which United States scientists consider to be dangerously high?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare replied that I should make my representations to my colleagues in the Ontario government, since the health aspect of water quality is controlled by provincial and municipal health departments in Canada.
What the minister did by that partisan answer was to try to avoid the clear responsibility which the Government of Canada had for asbestos discharges which occurred outside the jurisdiction of Ontario and outside the jurisdiction of Canada directly but within the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission, and which were raising the prospects of very serious damage to human health in the Great Lakes region, and particularly in Lake Superior.
The escalation of reported concentrations of asbestos in Lake Superior has risen from a point where, three years ago, it was not considered to be dangerous to where, today, it is considered to be very dangerous to human health, according to the records we had in our hand when that exchange occurred here in the House of Commons. An International Joint Commission report filed in February of this year indicated that asbestos fibres from industrial sources were contaminating drinking water in communities in the whole Great Lakes basin, and indeed the report which prompted my question indicated that the estimates of the IJC study were very much less than the danger appeared to be from the concentrations which were found by qualified researchers in existence in Lake Superior. It was clear that there were dangers.
Adjournment Debate
It is acknowledged even by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a letter to my colleague, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), that there is a danger of disabling but non malignant disease of the lung from asbestos concentrations. He went on to say:
It is also known that asbestos workers are more likely to die from cancers of the lung and gastro-intestinal tract than the average individual. More recently, mesothelioma, a relatively rare but highly malignant tumour of the pleural and peritoneal linings, has been strongly associated with exposure to asbestos.
Clearly there are some very real concentrations and possibilities of danger, and even lethal danger, to human health. It is not a matter to dismiss with partisan references or with directions to seek help in other jurisdictions, because there is clearly in the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada under the IJC generally a responsibility to care for the health of Canadians who might be affected by asbestos emanations.
I hope that in answering tonight the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marc-hand)-and I know his minister was not in the House when the question was asked-will take this opportunity to outline the extent of action which the Government of Canada is now taking within its own clear jurisdiction to deal with harmful concentrations of asbestos in the whole of the Great Lakes basin.
This problem was pointed out three months ago by the International Joint Commission, and particularly in the area of Lake Superior, where it has been suggested by recognized and responsible experts that the concentrations might be lethally higher than that pointed out by the IJC study in February.
I hope the parliamentary secretary when he answers will also indicate what action the Government of Canada intends to take regarding the possibility of asbestos contamination in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and I hope that subsequently when matters of this kind, which relate directly to the jurisdiction of the Canadian government and directly to the health of individual Canadian citizens, are raised in the House of Commons, we will not be again exposed to a display of that kind of partisanship, and the attempt to hide behind provincial jurisdiction which was shown by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when this very important question was first raised on April 17.


Len Marchand: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not feel that I can answer all the questions he has raised in the three minutes allotted to me, but I would like to refer him to a statement I made on the same subject in response to a question raised by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae). I made the statement on April 29, 1975, that there are some conflicts with regard to both the type of fibres and the fibre counts in samples taken in Lake Superior by the different groups studying this problem, which have made the matter a little difficult.
At the present time the Canada Centre for Inland Waters at Burlington is co-operating with the Ontario ministry of environment to conduct inter laboratory comparisons of a common sample from the Thunder Bay municipal water supply. This sample is being split be-

May 12, 1975
Adjournment Debate
tween Canada Centre for Inland Waters, McMaster University, Ontario Research Foundation and Lakehead University. We anticipate this inter laboratory comparison will assist us in establishing norms for standardization of analysis, which has been part of our problem.
Many people in responsible positions have carried out studies on asbestos fibres. The Great Lakes Research Advisory Board of the IJC began preparing a summary report on the status of research investigations on asbestos in the Great Lakes, and particularly in Lake Superior, in March, 1974. The Department of the Environment was conducting studies to evaluate the possibility of transboundary movement of asbestos fibres in Lake Superior in 1973. McMaster University was also involved in studies in 1973. The Ontario Research Foundation and the Ontario department of the environment have also been carrying out studies of asbestos fibres. This research into the distribution of asbestos fibres has been ongoing and will continue to be so.


AIR TRANSPORT-SERVICE FOR SOUTHWESTERN MANITOBA AND SOUTHEASTERN SASKATCHEWAN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, my comments are actually a continuation of our discussion on transportation. I am pleased to see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac), who is also the member for Battleford-Kindersley, present as the subject I wish to raise tonight concerns his part of the country as well as my own.
My comments arise out of the question I put to the minister on April 30 with respect to an announcement that was promised by the minister on March 10 as being forthcoming by April 10 in regard to a study undertaken by Air Canada, at the request of the province of Saskatchewan for jet service into eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba.
Unfortunately the minister misunderstood the point I was making, and I think he replied to what he thought was a question on the experimental commuter service which is about to be launched into western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. This is a service that will be sponsored by the Department of Transport in co-operation with the province of Manitoba. It is an experimental service of only two years duration and it is hard to fit it into any category that exists now with respect to announced air policy. It is not STOL and it does not seem to be third level air carrier service; it is an experimental commuter which will at least give some minimum air service in these important developing areas of Canada.
The point I wish to make is that this experimental commuter service will be just as ineffective as the other commuter services that have been tried in this area, such as the most recent one, the midwest service, which was withdrawn over a year ago, unless it is linked to a jet service which provides ready access to the rural parts of western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, flying east and west.
In western Manitoba the airport located just north of the city of Brandon would be the centre of focus. Brandon is the second largest city in the province of Manitoba and

it has been without air service of any kind for over a year. It has a new air terminal all ready to go. I think that what has to be accomplished by the Department of Transport is a two pronged attack, a commuter service feeding into the Brandon airport, and connecting with an ongoing jet service that is now under study by Air Canada.
Perhaps when the parliamentary secretary replies he can indicate if the study has been completed, if Air Canada will be providing the service, and if Air Canada plans once more to resume regional area responsibilities. Originally Air Canada had this responsibility, but relinquished it to the designated air carrier, TransAir. Will such service, if assumed by Air Canada, be part of the service already available from Regina to Winnipeg, and to the east, with a stop-over at Brandon airport? Of course,, we shall want service in reverse order going west. It seems to me that such service, both east and west, is vitally important if the developing areas of Canada are to have the high quality of air service they need.


Mr. Cliff Mclssac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) covered two or three points in the question he raised this evening.
As the hon. member is no doubt well aware, the federal government has participated with the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan in helping those two provinces set up a demonstration project with two Saunders ST 27 aircraft, to the tune of $2 million for the aircraft and another $1.35 million for the improvement of facilities at points those aircraft will serve.
The hon. member referred to the study being conducted by Air Canada with respect to air service in Saskatchewan. He made reference to this matter in an earlier question addressed to the minister. That study is the result of a statement made by the minister and, indeed, perhaps by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during the last election campaign. The statement was to the effect that if provincial governments require the help of Air Canada and of the Ministry of Transport to look into particular air needs, help will be forthcoming. Following that, the government of Saskatchewan asked Air Canada to study its air requirements. It is my understanding that this study is not finished yet. Even though the Ministry of Transport is co-operating with Air Canada and the province of Saskatchewan, the study is being made at the request of the province, and it is up to the province to make the results public. I presume that perhaps it will.
So far as Air Canada providing jet service to the city of Brandon is concerned, I am not aware that Air Canada plans at this moment to provide this service at this point in time. I am not aware if the study being conducted by the government of Saskatchewan will include the possibii-ty of jet service per se to Brandon, but I am sure that it will be related to air service which will connect Brandon with that whole general area.
As the hon. member says quite rightly, the actual service being provided by this experimental commuter service does not seem to be a third level of service. Hopefully it will be a worth while experiment, will promote good air
May 12, 1975

service to parts of Canada about which the hon. member is	Adjournment Debate The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin): Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
concerned, and will suggest further improvements we can	adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
make in this area.	Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Tuesday, May 13, 1975