1980-12-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent importance, in view of the fact that large foreign dredging cartels are being given a decided advantage in bidding on multimillion dollar federal dredging contracts in the Canadian Arctic, in the Miramichi Channel and at the Roberts Bank superport in my riding, and whereas these dredging projects should instead be carried out by Canadian contractors using Canadian crews and vessels manufactured and registered in Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport, together with the responsible officials in the National Harbours Board, be directed to stop giving favoured status to foreign dredging companies, for example, those of Dutch origin, which seem to be popular with some government officials, and that the government be required instead to show clear preference for Canadian-owned dredging companies, many of which are presently working at only a 20 per cent utilization factor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans entered into a verbal agreement with Imaqpik Fisheries whereby Imaqpik would undertake a study of shrimp stocks in Ungava Bay and in
return the federal government agreed to restrict other vessels from the area until the study was completed; and in view of the fact that another vessel harvesting illegally in the area was later given special ministerial permission to remain, and subsequently the department issued permits to six additional shrimp processing vessels, thereby directly violating the agreement with Imaqpik Fisheries, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans immediately withdraw the six additional permits issued to shrimp producers in Ungava Bay until such time as substantial scientific studies in the area have been completed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that a highly privileged document handed over last September 29 to Labour Canada was published by a regional daily last Monday; considering that this document has clearly shown that all initial expectations for the Mirabel project have proven to be entirely wrong; and finally, considering that according to some government members current conditions are absolutely intolerable, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Transport to convene as soon as possible the standing committee of the House to enable all hon. members to deal with the matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 4, 1980
[English)


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency. In light of the statement yesterday to the National Press Club by Claude Ryan, leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, that he believed the threat of western separatism is now a greater problem than the threat of Quebec separatism has been over the past ten years, i move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the hon. member for Champlain apologize to the House for the Standing Order 43 he presented yesterday criticizing the Leader of the Opposition for pointing out the serious nature of this threat to Canadian unity, and to make the same effort to inform himself about the serious issue of western separatism as has Mr. Ryan.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise, like all other motions under this standing order, to move the following motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent astronomical rise in interest rates and the expectations of yet higher rates today, is it any wonder that Canadians who have seen the movie "Network" are now saying to the government, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more"? Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to at least say to the governor of the Bank of Canada, "It is time to end your policy of tying Canadian interest rates to those in the United States and to pursue an interest rate policy made in Canada", in order to halt skyrocketing mortgage costs, declining industrial production and unemployment levels that will be the worst since the depression of the 1930s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	Madam Speaker: For presentation, this motion requires the
unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Two months ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) publicly chastised the government and politicians of the United States. Last week the same minister publicly rebuked the High Commissioner of the government of Great Britain. Yesterday the same minister publicly criticized the government of France. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs provide his personal hit list to this House indicating which countries he is planning to attack in the future, so that Canadian immigrants, tourists and businessmen might be made aware of what they can look forward to and, further, that the same minister indicate whether the Soviet Union will at some time be added to his list on the basis that his public rebukes, criticisms and public attacks seem to be reserved exclusively for our allies at a time of extraordinarily sombre developments in Europe.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the government whose constitutional philosophy is sovereignty-association has been broadcasting, several times each day, erroneous and biased publicity on the mobility of the Canadian labour force; as that publicity would have us believe that Quebec workers will see their jobs threatened by the workers of Ontario, and even Alberta, should the constitutional resolution now under study ever be adopted; and I quote an excerpt from that publicity:
Until now, it has always been considered normal for a Quebecker to find himself a job with the James Bay project. But Ottawa is asking us to rejoice because workers from Ontario-
-or Alberta-
-could take over his job tomorrow
1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic-Comp-ton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier):
That the House condemn that type of publicity as resorted to by the Quebec government in its anti-constitutional campaign, and confirm that the proposed
December 4. 1980

constitutional resolution now under study threatens in no way provincial jurisdiction over labour and professional qualifications.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the betrayal by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who has said that he has fulfilled his commitments to Canfarm, in spite of his unwillingness to provide that organization with $1.2 million for the fiscal year 1981-82-a promise and, indeed, an agreement that he made in 1979-and in view of the fact that Canfarm might close down before the end of the year because of its lack of cash to meet its payroll and other day to day expenses, thereby throwing about 1 50 people out of work just prior to Christmas and jeopardizing the economic health of its clients, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Agriculture urge his cabinet colleagues, especially those on the Treasury Board, to reconsider their decision and grasp the leadership role expected from the Minister of Agriculture to save that organization, which has such worth-while potential to Canadian farmers and to Canadian agriculture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALGARY-CONSTRUCTION OF COLISEUM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as the city of Calgary will hold a rezoning hearing on December 9, 1980, regarding the location of a proposed sports coliseum in the residential neighbourhood of Victoria Park, and since this neighbourhood was rehabilitated with expenditures of over $800,000 in federal funds, and, furthermore, since residents of this neighbourhood and surrounding neighbourhoods, which received millions of dollars for rehabilitation, oppose the destruction of their neighbourhoods, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
Oral Questions
That the federal government not contribute to a Calgary coliseum on a site that will destroy residential neighbourhoods which have been rehabilitated with millions of federal dollars and, furthermore, that the minister responsible for CMHC support local residents who want to save Victoria Park and lobby the Alberta government and Calgary city officials to move the coliseum elsewhere.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That this House commend the activities of Albertans such as Grant Notley, Mel Hurtig, Rod Sykes and Nick Taylor who are speaking out for a strong, united Canada; and that this House urges the Premier of Alberta to join with his fellow Albertans in this most important cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The Bank of Canada rate today has gone to 14.76 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: -from 13.95 per cent, up 81 basis points. I might point out to the minister that that is far in excess of what it was during the months we were in office last year, so he no longer has that excuse or that irrelevancy to present. 1 want to point out to the minister that the vice-president and chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank predicted last week that rising interest rates will push Canadian unemployment over the one million mark this winter, and that the high cost of borrowing money threatens home and auto sales and

December 4, 1980
Oral Questions
plant investment. He also said that Ottawa has left inflationfighting to the central bank and that the Bank of Canada has only interest rates and the money supply to use to try to control inflation.
In view of this increase in interest rates, does the minister agree or not with the prediction of the economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank as to what the results are going to be of these higher interest rates? What action is he going to take to try to ameliorate these effects? What action does he now propose to take in this situation to help the ordinary people of this country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not agree with the conclusions of the distinguished economist quoted by the hon. member, because he no more than any one of us can predict with any assurance the future movement of interest rates. The rates revealed today obviously have increased but they have still not reached the peak that existed in April last, a situation which changed very quickly. I have drawn to the attention of the House several times the rather roller-coaster performance of interest rates that we have experienced, not as a result of concrete developments in Canada, but because of the response in the Canadian market to-


An hon. Member:: Your budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the current, rather large gap between
interest rates in Canada and the United States.
An hon. gentleman said something about the budget. He does not know very much about what is happening in the economy, because these changes took place considerably before the budget date of October 28.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it is true that this rate is not the top Liberal peak. The top Liberal peak was 16.2 per cent with the prime bank rate at 17.5 per cent. I suppose the minister is aiming for that again. Let me remind the minister that when he brought his budget down on October 28, the bank rate was 3 per cent below what it is now; the Canadian dollar was worth 85.22 cents in terms of the U.S. dollar, and yesterday it was down to 83.74. We have had serious deterioration in the economic situation since then.
Given these facts, will the minister tell the House whether he is going to carry out the commitment of his predecessor, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who said on November 6, when we had much lower interest rates, "it is right and necessary for Liberals to take a new approach and a new look at interest rate policy". Is the minister going to do that, or is the new approach to let them go up out of sight, as he did last May and as he apparently plans to do again?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is confused on so many points. I thought he was my predecessor, not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the finance portfolio. The hon. member knows perfectly well, if he believed for a moment the kind of statement that he made when he occupied the post of minister of finance, that these
particular rates that exist in the country now have very little to do with any of the policies contained in the budget. They have to do almost entirely with the movement of interest rates in the United States, even though at the present time, with the policies that we are following, short-term rates are considerably lower than those prevailing in the United States. He ought to give some credit to the flexible policy that is pursued at the present time by the monetary authorities, who have succeeded in maintaining rates in Canada, because of the flexible administration of the policy, consistently below those prevailing in recent months in the United States.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is my final supplementary question. Yes, flexibility is Liberal policy. The Liberals are the most flexible creatures Canada has ever produced. Their policy is very, very flexible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Canada has been flexed again.


An hon. Member:: Flexible like a snake.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are like the India rubber snake. There are 877,000 Canadians unemployed today and we are heading toward one million unemployed. In Toronto on January 10, the Prime Minister promised that he was going to fight recession with every weapon at his command and that he was going to control and combat inflation. When will the minister start to carry out those commitments of the Prime Minister which were given in his famous platform speech in Toronto at the Liberal campaign college on January 10?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as 1 stated before the presentation of the budget, 1 intended to produce a budget which would be fully-


John Carnell Crosbie: Flexible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -consistent with the campaign pledges made by the Prime Minister. 1 want to repeat today that every commitment made by the Prime Minister with respect to fiscal policy, economic policy and energy policy has been fully implemented in the budget and in the national energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. An official of Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation has stated that it is going to be a tough situation for a lot of people when their mortgage interest rates increase to 15 per cent. That statement
December 4, 1980

was made earlier in the week before today's increase in the bank rate, which will mean a 0.75 per cent increase in mortgage rates. Increases in realty taxes, home heating and other household costs have put further pressures on family incomes. My question to the minister is this. Why has the minister done nothing for the Canadian home owner who is faced with renewing a mortgage?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, first, on approximately March 28 of this year the government's response to that phenomenon was that under the AHOP program we said we would move to assist those people who found they had to direct more than 30 per cent of their income toward shelter costs under programs sponsored by the government. Second, the Minister of Finance authorized that officials of the corporation and I meet with the lending officials of banks and mortgage companies, and so on, early in the spring. We discussed opportunities and devices by which assistance could be given to individual home owners who are facing untoward difficulties. What I think the officials said, and what the hon. member opposite did not indicate, was that under a mortgage roll-over situation, with a five-year mortgage maturing, even if there is a 50 per cent increase, since we all know that incomes have increased over the five years, the picture my friend presents is not the sort of severe hardship that he would have us believe.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that everyone's income has gone up 50 per cent. That is not the case. In response to questions from this side of the House, we have had a litany of excuses and distractions. We have talked about housing starts, MURBs and the Matthews report. Today we are not going to talk about housing starts because housing starts went down in November. Why does the minister not have a specific plan for the Canadian home owner?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is being selective in the information contained in his question and in his preface to the question as well. Housing starts did go down 10,000 in November but he forgot to say that housing starts went up 25,000 in the month before. He forgot to indicate that in the third quarter of this year starts on an average for the year will approach 162,000, much better than we anticipated when we saw the starts at 125,000 in June.
We know the housing industry has come through a difficult period. The challenges that are facing families in terms of the mortgage rollover situation we appreciate are also difficult. But I do not think anyone in this present day economy expects things to be easy. We asked people to look at whether they are being treated equally and fairly in respect to other Canadians. As was said in the Speech from the Throne, the government knows people will accept sacrifice but not inequality.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. "The National Energy Program" outlines the government's Canadianization program. It speaks of the importance of Canadian ownership and control. We saw in this House the first action of Canadianization when the minister gave $40 million to Imperial Oil. We now have the Alsands project and the tar sands, which is 87 per cent foreign controlled, mainly by Shell Oil, a company which the minister knows in the last six months had its profit increased by 70 per cent and which took $200 million outside Canada in dividends over the last five years. Yesterday in Calgary, Mr. D. W. Menzel, chairman of the nine-member consortium for the Alsands project, said that Ottawa had offered Alsands financial help.
Can the minister tell this House how much money he offered Alsands? Also, how does this Alsands project, with 87 per cent foreign ownership, which the minister approves of, fit in with the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, no financial help has been offered Alsands.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 have another question for the minister. I gather he is repudiating what Mr. Menzel said. I want to ask about "The National Energy Program," which appears to be a fine program. However, when you read it closely you see that it is quite flawed in spite of its slickness. The program mentions a price regime for the tar sands of $38 per barrel plus increases through a linkage with the consumer price index, estimated at up to $80 a barrel by 1990. Previously the minister said that Alberta was holding up the tar sands project. The same Mr. Menzel-and perhaps he was wrong again-said yesterday in Calgary, and I quote:
-Alsands also has problems with the pricing schedule proposed by the federal government . . . Alsands does not believe that deal will provide an adequate rate of return-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: How long are we going to listen to this question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is the minister in agreement that there has been no deal with the oil companies there? Is the figure absolute, the $38 plus up to the $60-


Mr. Nielsen:: That's enough.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Isn't there a 20-minute time limit?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me just rephrase it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.

December 4, 1980
OraI Questions


Walter David Baker: Is this Committee of the Whole?


Madam Speaker:: Order. The question has been posed. The hon. member is becoming argumentative.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Andre:: True or false?


Marc Lalonde: -I have some difficulty answering the question or questions put by the hon. member. I have said that we are willing to undertake further negotiations with the government of Alberta in order to reach an agreement covering both conventional and non-conventional oil. This is where the matter stands at the present time. There has already been a meeting between officials and I hope there will be further meetings in the near future.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The point is this. Mr. Menzel says-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member does not put his question immediately, I will have to refuse to recognize him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is simply this. Are these the final figures that are set down in the national energy policy with respect to the price of tar sands oil from the Alsands plant, or is the minister to change those figures in order to get an agreement with the Alsands consortium?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have just indicated that we have begun further negotiations with the government of Alberta. I have indicated before that while those discussions are going on I will not comment on any specific aspect of pricing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the mounting gravity of the situation around and in Poland. Since the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the President of the United States and the leaders of the European Economic Community have all issued warnings and uttered their condemnation that any aggressive action taken by the U.S.S.R. or any of its satellites against Poland would be totally unacceptable and would lead to a drastic deterioration of East-West relationships, 1 ask the Prime Minister when the Government of Canada is going publicly to add its voice to the pressures that are being brought against the Soviet Union? In the light of what many consider to be the worst situation since
the Second World War threatening the cause of world peace, how long is the Prime Minister of Canada going to remain silent?


Mr. Trudeau:: One more minute.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is certainly making its views known, but we do not believe that the cause of world peace would be furthered at this time by public declarations or sabre rattling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: As the hon. member said, this is a very difficult and critical time for Poland and we do not believe that at this time any public interest could be furthered by a public statement.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it should not surprise anyone that the Prime Minister of Canada is reluctant to speak out on a matter of this kind. Everyone in the country feels strongly about what the Soviet Union is doing except the Prime Minister of Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, in the last few days, he has publicly contacted his co-partners in the Economic Summit to ascertain what economic and political sanctions could be invoked against the Soviet Union in the event of aggression, and how these could be publicly released so as to deter any action the Soviet Union might take.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are in close touch with our summit partners concerning this problem and I might say that I am very surprised at the comments which the hon. member made. This is too important a matter for petty politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: What a shoddy performance.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Since the Secretary of State for External Affairs declines to give any details about what the government is prepared to do in this regard, could he say if he has called in the Soviet ambassador to relate to the Soviet ambassador personally the concerns that millions of Canadians have in this regard? Has he at least taken that step?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are making our views known, but not through that channel. The problems of Poland are for the Poles to solve and not for any other country. We have stated publicly on many occasions in the last number of weeks and months-we stated this clearly to the Soviet government-that the problems of independent countries of the world are to be solved by those countries and not by the Soviet Union.
December 4, 1980


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if I might attract the attention of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He is not interested in this subject.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister smiles while the danger to world peace accentuates in Europe. We now have it clear that the Government of Canada is not prepared to speak out strongly in the way that other governments have. It is clear now that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not yet called in the Soviet ambassador. The Secretary of State for External Affairs tells us that the government is doing things but that those things are too important and too secret for the people of Canada or for the Parliament of Canada to know what they are.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada tell us what the Government of Canada is doing in the name of trying to preserve a situation of peace and trying to prevent the conflagration that could occur if Canada and other nations that want to speak for freedom and for peace do not defend the values for which this country stands?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand the impatience of the opposition to see some public stand taken by the government. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was right in indicating that we were acting but in ways that we did not yet want to indicate publicly.
If the Leader of the Opposition insists, I suppose I can recite some of the concerns we have and the concerns I have shared with Helmut Schmidt, the Chancellor of West Germany, with the Premier of France and with the President of France, and since then in correspondence with every other summit leader.


Mr. MacKay:: And an old camel driver?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Tory opposition is concerned with camel drivers and this is not an occasion for me to answer that type of snide remark.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the House of Commons and the people of Canada would like to know is this. In a situation where the leaders of other countries-the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and leaders of the European community-have spoken out on this matter, why is the Prime Minister of Canada adopting such a position of silence? Why is the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada afraid to call in the Soviet ambassador?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will again attempt to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that action is being taken. We would not like to see a repeat of the situation at the time of the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union when
Oral Questions
most western nations acted on their own to condemn that invasion and to indicate that they were not only opposed to the invasion but that detente was severely threatened, that they would take various measures to protest that invasion. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was then prime minister and I do not have to remind him that we succeeded less in showing our condemnation of the Soviet Union than showing the extent to which the western nations were divided, whether it was over the Olympics, the grain boycott, or the interruption of visits and of detente with the Soviet Union.
If the members of the opposition want greater elaboration on that, I will gladly do that, but I think the events are clear enough in the memories of the former prime minister and the former secretary of state for external affairs. In this very serious time for the peace of the world we in Canada do not care to show again that kind of division which existed when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was prime minister. We are hoping that the western nations will be able to react in a more united way to this very serious threat. That is all I want to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the fact is clear that most of the nations of the western world are acting in a united way but that there is one nation standing alone. The nation which is standing alone is Canada. Canada is standing alone in silence. Why is Canada standing alone in silence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he says that all of the western nations except Canada are acting in a united way. For instance, I will ask him if he knows how the various nations are reacting to the very serious economic difficulties in Poland brought about by the fact that to achieve peace with the trade unions a few months ago the Polish government had to make undertakings which it will find very difficult to keep. Does the Leader of the Opposition know which countries are wanting to help Poland through its near bankruptcy and which are taking the opposite position, that we should let it flounder? Does he know what position the NATO countries are taking on this and to what extent they are united?


An hon. Member:: Do you know?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He was being completely fallacious and it was just a sign of ignorance which the Leader of the Opposition showed when he was prime minister when he assumed we were all united on Afghanistan, or when ours was one of the countries which was party to a boycott which most of the other countries could not carry out. We do not want the same kind of division, disunity and chaos to be shown in the west as was shown when he was leader of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 4, 1980
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we know is that the leaders of Great Britain, the United States and other countries in the European Economic Community have spoken out, but Canada has stayed silent. We do not know what Canada is doing because the Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada will not tell us, except to say that they have not even taken the elementary step of calling in the Soviet ambassador to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Joseph Clark: What action, other than silence, is the Government of Canada taking? Why is the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada reluctant to call in the Soviet ambassador? Why is the Government of Canada not joining with other nations in a public way to try to bring pressure which might stop dangerous events from occurring in the world? Why the silence? What is being done?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 thought 1 had indicated in my first answer that I had been in personal meetings with at least three of the leaders of the western nations and that I had been in contact by personal correspondence with the others. If the Leader of the Opposition chooses to call this inaction and silence, that is fine. It would be easy for us to break the silence, as other nations have done, by saying we condemn any danger or pressure arising from the Soviet Union; but what would we be doing collectively to take steps in a united way to show that if the worst threatens or happens we will be acting in a united way? Docs the Leader of the Opposition suggest that we boycott some other things, or does he suggest that we help Poland financially, or that we-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You can do both.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 wish the hon. member for wherever he is from -


An hon. Member:: Saskatoon West.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is in the west; that does not matter to you.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Come on, Joe.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the Leader of the Opposition has made his effort. If he wants to condemn us for not making great statements, that is his privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to condemn you for abandoning our allies.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina West.


FEDERAL LANDS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, finally. 1 would like to address a question to the
Minister of Public Works, about which the Minister of Transport no doubt also has concern. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works about a report which the press in Quebec has been dealing with recently concerning 79,000 acres of land owned by the Government of Canada called "Mirabel peripheral land holdings". The report says, among other things, that the local residents have suffered significant losses due to the destabilizing of the area, that budgets have allowed only for hasty and superficial repairs in most cases, which has resulted in a vicious circle, and that these residents do not have any security of tenure. The government has spent $130 million to buy the land and $42 million to repair buildings and properties.
Has the minister made any decision as a result of that report? What measures does the government propose to give the people who live there more security of tenure, so that they can fix up their homes and farms?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers was indeed prepared for the Ministry of Public Works in preparation for a cabinet submission. The cabinet committee involved is charged with taking a long-term look at the problems which have continued in the Mirabel area. I might say that the control and management of an area of 79,000 acres is no easy task. I met residents of the area as late as Monday of this week and received briefs from them. I also met the local members of Parliament who had input into that decision-making process. That report will be before the committee on government operations on December 12. It sets out a number of long-range options which we hope will be a long-term look at what the problems will be in trying to accommodate an international airport in any section of this country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister still cannot make up his mind. In addition to the acreage the government owns, the government spent another $10 million developing an industrial park which nobody will use. Mirabel ranks forty-sixth of all the airports in Canada in terms of take-offs and landings. It is No. 10 in terms of passengers handled. Nobody will use the industrial park on which that $10 million has been expended. In addition to doing something about security of tenure for individual residents and farmers on those lands, what does the minister intend to do to have some use made of that industrial park? Will he consult the Minister of Transport with respect to following the recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport which could move people to Mirabel airport by fast rail at a cost of $4 per person?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am happy to say that the Ministry of Public Works has been in close consultation with the ministry of transportation and communications. We cannot approach this problem in isolation. A number of ministries have had input into this decision.
The question of industrial use, of course, goes hand in hand with the security of tenure of people in the area. People who would move into the area and put in industrial plants would, of

December 4, 1980

Oral Questions
course, want to know where their labour market is. They would want to know where their sales market is. At the same time they have to know what is the general stability or otherwise of the community. It is a complicated land use and community development concern that we have and, as 1 say, we cannot forget at all that this land surrounds an international airport. We do not want to have a repeat of the problems, for example, that we have in connection with the Toronto International Airport, where there are conflicting uses and conflicting problems which persist to this day.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PETROLEUM RESEARCH PLANT IN MONTREAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
To begin with, 1 would like to remind everybody that Montreal is a petroleum products refining centre of extreme importance for the eastern part of the country and that in the Montreal area there are many people who would like to have a heavy oil upgrading plant built there. The hon. minister will recall that some time ago a request was made for a feasibility study regarding the construction of such a plant in Montreal.
Could the minister let us know if this study is now completed? What are its main conclusions? Can Montrealers expect soon the establishment of such a heavy oil upgrading plant in their city?


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works; 1 am sorry 1 did not have an opportunity to give him notice. Like his predecessor, I suspect the minister is concerned that in the interests of consistency and national development we help Canadian companies develop a capability in Canada for doing their own dredging operations, despite the unfortunate history of some Canadian companies. Will the minister tell the House what steps, if any, he will take to assure Canadian participation in dredging, in view of the fact that tenders have recently closed on some multimillion dollar dredging contracts?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, 1 too am sorry the hon. member did not give me notice of his question. The objective of the ministry is exactly as he indicated, that is, to attempt to ensure that Canadian companies are protected and that labour and management specialties in this area are given secure opportunity for competition. I will be happy to take the member's submission under notice, and if the tenders are being processed, 1 am sure it is an item the ministry will take into consideration and review.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the minister for his answer and look forward to the supplementary information.
My supplementary question is much simpler and does not require notice. While the dredging of the Miramichi River in New Brunswick has been postponed-on several occasions it has been sought after and very much promised-will the minister be making a tender award for this project soon, and could he tell us when it will commence? Will the project be cost-recoverable, or will the government, in its great wisdom, treat it as a development project, as it should be?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the short answer is that it is not a cost-recovery project. The question of cost recovery is still a policy under consideration by the government. The project is under way and the efforts of the hon. member should not go unnoticed. As many members of the House know, the member has pushed for this for a long time.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government had asked Petro-Canada to complete a study during the summer regarding the creation of a heavy oil upgrading plant of the Montreal refineries. This study was completed some time ago and according to its conclusions, such a plant should be built and peferably in Montreal. Since then, a committee has been formed with the Montreal refineries for the purpose of concluding the details of this study by April 1 of next year. This project could cost up to $1 billion and the recommendation is to the effect that such a plant be built as soon as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment. Given the already serious pollution problems in the Niagara River, a situation which has been known to politicians and public servants for several years, and in light of the recent announcement that dioxins, the most toxic chemical known to man, have been found in gull eggs in the Great Lakes, will the minister

December 4, 1980
Oral Questions
finally reverse the passive position both he and the previous minister of the environment have taken with respect to the pollution of boundary waters and initiate the toughest measures possible, including court action if needed, to prevent American chemical companies from using the Niagara River and the Great Lakes as a sewer for toxic chemical waste products?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mischaracterizes the position the government has taken. We have been forceful in our representation to the American authorities and have repeated those representations on an extraordinarily frequent number of occasions. We are exploring every possible means at our disposal to try to ensure that limitations are brought to bear against those in the United States who are guilty of this kind of pollution, including an examination of the possibility of applying procedures by which legal action might be taken.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad to hear the minister is considering possible court action. I hope he will cease his passive attitude and also oppose the action of SCA Chemical Waste Services Inc. which will pour millions of gallons of toxic waste into the Niagara River.
My supplementary question concerns the discovery of chlorophenoxy acid herbicides, such as 2, 4-D; 2, 4-DP; and 2, 4, 5-T which contain dioxins, in surface waters in western Canada, the highest concentration being recorded in the Qu'Appelle River district of Saskatchewan. Given the fact that these toxic chemicals are being introduced into the environment through agricultural spraying as well as municipal and industrial effluents in urban areas such as Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton, what specific steps will the minister take to prevent further contamination of the environment of western Canada with these toxic substances and to alert the public of any possible dangers to health?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could refer the hon. gentleman to my answers in the House of Commons two days ago in relation to these issues. If he has not received the press release and the background information which 1 released two days ago, I will be happy to ensure that they are sent to him, including all the information we have in relation to western Canada.
The problem concerning the dioxin question is that the generation of dioxin does not come through the utilization of herbicides and spray, it comes through the manufacture of 2, 4, 5-D and phenoprop. The origin of that as a problem arises as a byproduct of manufacture, and perhaps springs as well from combustion, in all aspects and not simply in relation to the destruction of these chemicals. As far as we know, if properly used there is no consequential hazard from the utilization of these herbicides at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture but as he is not in the House 1 shall put it to his parliamentary secretary. Since the Agricultural Producers' Union has adopted an aid policy in order to give its regional tax agents responsibilities as developers with a view to helping the financially depressed Canfarm organization, can the parliamentary secretary tell us, in light of the discussions held the day before last with the board of the organization, whether the department is considering helping this co-operative pursue its activities, which are important to the farmers in my riding as well as to those all over Canada?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, last Tuesday night we met with the heads of Canfarm. The organization is now asking the government for a $2.5 million grant. In view of the financial slump in which Canfarm finds itself, because of lack of participation by Canadian farmers, we have asked its directors and its chairman, Mr. Peter Hannam, to try to find people who would be interested in buying the corporation in the near future.
Within a week, the department should be able to give a satisfactory answer so that Canfarm employees can be paid before the end of the month. Last Friday in Montreal, we met with APU chairman Pierre Gaudet, and it would appear that the union is now quite interested in making Canfarm an offer to purchase.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I was encouraged by the comment he made in answer to a question asked earlier in the House regarding Alsands that discussions are taking place to resolve this very tense situation. Will the minister give his absolute assurance that satisfactory negotiations will be completed to ensure that this project does not die, since this would be absolutely catastrophic for the nation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that I cannot give him that assurance, for the good reason that he asked me whether we will have a satisfactory agreement or a resolution of the differences at the present time. I cannot speak for the government of Alberta. I can tell him that if he looks at
December 4, 1980

the record, particularly with regard to tar sands plants, he will find the federal government has always been very forthcoming and ready to make sure those projects will take place. If there has been any delay it has not come from the federal government in the past and I do not think it will come from us in the future.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, in a serious situation like this the minister of energy blames the government of Alberta, when he knows full well that blame lies equally in his court.
1 would like to ask the minister if he can confirm something for me. In a recent interview the minister indicated he does not feel that time pressures are against him because of the potential production from Canada lands offshore and in the high Arctic. Does the minister feel that the high Arctic and these Canada lands production projects coming on-stream would make oil sands development unnecessary? Is that the position of the minister? If he confirms that it is, would he table in the House information he might have which would give credence to that position?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have always taken the position that Canada needs all these projects, whether they are offshore, in the Arctic or in the tar sands, the heavy oil area. That is the position we have taken and it is the position 1 have taken consistently.
I have indicated, however, that there may be large discoveries taking place offshore, or in the Arctic, which may change the general context of the situation and might reduce some of the pressure to proceed immediately with some of those plants. 1 can only tell the hon. member that this is speculation, but speculation which arises out of very public facts released by the companies concerned about the potential which exists in the offshore and the Arctic. I hope we will be able to proceed with all those projects.
I remind the hon. member that in the National Energy Program we forecast self-sufficiency in this country before 1990, without taking into account any discoveries offshore or in the Arctic. If those discoveries were made in the meantime that would again improve the situation very considerably indeed.


ENERGY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the great dependence on energy supplies, particularly by Canadians in the Atlantic region involved in the processing of essential, perishable food products and commercial fishing, could the minister indicate to the House if he is in the position to give some assurance with respect to energy supplies for these food processors, and can he guarantee protection for commercial fishermen?
Privilege-Mr. Flis


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am happy to confirm that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, following numerous representations from farming groups, fishermen's groups and in particular from many members of Parliament on this side of the House, has come to the conclusion that the highest priority should be given to agricultural products and fisheries products. This will cover perishable food-fisheries as well as agricultural products. So the highest priority has been given to those products under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. I welcome this decision of the board.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight) on Tuesday rose on a question of privilege concerning a letter written on House of Commons stationery, in which the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) solicited support for A National Committee for a Human Rights Charter, of which he is chairman. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster suggested it was improper to use House of Commons stationery for such a purpose.
I have examined the matter carefully and I cannot find any grounds upon which the Chair ought to intervene. There are no grounds upon which privilege might be claimed in this case, nor would the House expect me to act as a censor for any hon. member. There are rules regulating the contents of the householder mailings, but members must take full responsibility for material mailed under their frank and written on official stationery.


MR. FLIS-REMARKS REFLECTING ON POLISH HERITAGE
Madam Speaker:: I have a question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from questions, and answers given in this House with regard to the situation in Poland. I lived in Poland ten years ago when the food riots took place, in which there was a lot of bloodshed. Today the workers have achieved miracles without an ounce of blood being shed. My heritage, which happens to be Polish, was disgraced in this House because of the official opposition reference to camels and what-have-you. Madam Speaker, I would like to read the "blues" before speaking further on this question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member that certain interjections made in the course of debate do not constitute grounds for a question of privilege, unless the hon. member is able to establish that the one mentioned is unparliamentary, which it is not. If the hon. member has to read the "blues" in order to ascertain whether that expression is a

December 4, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Benjamin
breach of his privilege, then I am afraid it is probably a bit far-fetched. 1 do take note of his point but I do not feel that he has a question of privilege. We will leave it at that.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, it being Thursday 1 wonder if the government House leader is able to tell us, following this six-day period for the consideration of estimates under the special order, the government's legislative program between now and the time he estimates we will be rising for Christmas. Perhaps he does not have an estimate in that respect today, but if he does he may give us that information in his answer. 1 would be grateful to him if he can do so.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the House is perfectly aware of the order of business for the next few days. The House is in Committee of the Whole until next Wednesday inclusively and then, unless a last minute change occurs, in which case 1 shall advise my hon. colleagues opposite as soon as possible, we intend to proceed with consideration of the bill concerning oil and gas in Canada.
Now, as for the other items of business until the holiday season recess, 1 would urge my colleagues to wait until next Thursday because there will still be time for me to inform them further.
1 shall take the opportunity to inquire about how much time they are prepared to devote to the study of the bill concerning oil and gas in Canada which I have just mentioned. It would enable me to submit a list of other bills, perhaps non-controversial bills, which could be disposed of before Christmas.


POINT OF ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order to thank you for trying to correct a severe imbalance which was occurring during question period. I hope you will continue to do that. The spokesman for external affairs for the official opposition and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) cannot get their act together. They required seven questions because they fumbled, which took up a major portion of the question period. I was happy to see Your Honour recognize fewer members of the official opposition after that, although you were not able to succeed completely in correcting the imbalance.


Erik Nielsen: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, one of my responsibilities is to keep meticulous daily records on the number of members the Chair recognizes. I know the Chair keeps similar records. For instance, today there were three members of the New Democratic Party, one of whom was the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who went on as if he was writing a book, and there were three members of the Liberal party recognized, as opposed to a total of six members of the official opposition, that is, the Conservative opposition, the real opposition in this House.


Erik Nielsen: A total of six members were recognized from the Liberal-NDP coalition and a total of six members from the Conservative party, the real opposition in this House. 1 could, but 1 will not at this stage, raise my observations about the imbalance which has risen. Certainly it is not due to any unfairness exercised by the Chair, but there has been an imbalance and it concerns me. 1 propose to seek an audience with you, Madam Speaker, at some future date next week to discuss this matter. But, in the meantime, there is no cause for complaint from that little red rump over there.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would not want to mislead the House. I take his word with regard to the number of questioners and it is very nice of him to keep track of what is occurring in the House. 1 am sure, Madam Speaker, that you appreciate it. The hon. member did state that there were six questions asked by the official opposition, three questions by the NDP, and three questions by the Liberal party. I assume that the hon. member's figures are correct, but what he did not say was that the questioners from the official opposition asked many supplementary questions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) must have been up on five questions.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member says four. In fairness, if one takes the total number of questions asked during question period, the official opposition did very well and perhaps a little better than usual.


Madam Speaker:: I would like to make a few comments about the way in which question period proceeded today. I took it that the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was congratulating me on the way in which I had conducted the question period, rather than lodging a complaint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Four.
December 4, 1980


Madam Speaker:: There are some days that are more difficult than others to keep a balance, and today was such a day. Some days I have relied on time rather than the number of questioners. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was right when he stated the number of questioners recognized from the official opposition, but I would remind him that there was more than one supplementary question for some of those questioners.
I allowed these extra supplementary questions because when a debate such as the one which took place today occurs in the House of Commons, I do not think it is my duty to inhibit it. Of course, such debate cannot go on every day, but on special days when the situation in my view warrants it, I allow that kind of debate to continue. That is why 1 did not penalize the NDP in its usual number of questioners. Nevertheless, 1 believe that the allotment today was fairly balanced.
I would like to make a point about the number of questioners on the government side. There were three questioners, but they asked only three questions. None of them had supplemen-taries. If there is a third questioner from the government side, he or she is usually recognized past three o'clock so that it does not take anything away from anyone. These three questioners in actual fact accounted for only one question and a half, not three questions.


MR. ELZINGA-&quot;NOTLEY&quot; NOT &quot;NOOTLEY&quot;
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my point of order is in reference to the motion put under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang). In the interest of maintaining more co-operation between the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party, I suggest that the hon. member learn to pronounce correctly the name of his co-leader, the New Democratic Party leader in the province of Alberta. His name is Mr. Notley, not "Mr. Nootley".


Peter Joseph Lang: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I will take a "nootley" on that. Thank you.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, on House business, I wonder if, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council, his parliamentary secretary would indicate to the House what has happened to the freedom of information legislation which has been promised for some time.


Erik Nielsen: It is secret.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The President of the Privy Council has indicated that we would be dealing with the oil and gas legislation. We have been waiting far too long for this freedom of information legislation to be tabled in the House for second reading. We have indicated that we are prepared to co-operate with the government. I am wondering why the government is
Point of Order-Mr. Anguish
not prepared to bring this long overdue legislation in next week at the earliest opportunity.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the government did give notice of its intention to bring this bill forward last Monday provided the House dealt with Bill C-34, the Judges Act. But, as hon. members will recall, the debate on that bill was lengthier than had been anticipated. As a result, the House did not get to the freedom of information legislation. I will take note of the hon. member's representation and perhaps we will be able to proceed with that legislation at an early date. But as the President of the Privy Council just stated, the House will deal with other energy legislation of high priority which must pass before Christmas.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification from the parliamentary secretary who knows that the full day on Monday was allocated to the Judges' Act. Is he now suggesting that for some reason there should have been additional time that day for the freedom of information legislation? Why can the parliamentary secretary not give us a commitment that on Thursday or Friday of next week the government will table, for second reading, the freedom of information legislation?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, at one point a few weeks ago we on the government side were under the impression that both the judges' bill and the access to information bill would go through very quickly, and that perhaps both would go to committee within a single day. Perhaps, in believing that, the government was a bit too optimistic. Concerns were expressed with regard to the Judges Act. As I have said, the debate on the Judges Act was lengthier than had been anticipated. We will take the hon. member's representations very seriously and I will pass them on to the President of the Privy Council. I am sure that the hon. member's House leader will raise the matter again in the normal way.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises from the debates of December 2 when unparliamentary language was used by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) in response to a speech I had made that evening in the House. I did not raise this point of order at the time of the occurrence because I was unable to hear over the noise in the House. I did not become aware of the matter until I read the comment in Hansard the following day. The hon. member is reported in Hansard as saying, in reference to myself and the New Democratic Party: -the contribution of my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party and his verbal diarrhea.
Since I was the previous speaker, the hon. member must have been referring to me. I would like to have this language
5328

December 4, 1980
Order Paper Questions
ruled as unparliamentary, Beauchesne's fifth edition, chapter seven, section 320, subsection (s) refers to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is true that there is a list of unparliamentary language and that I must refer to that list when I am ruling on what seems to be unparliamentary language. However, there is also another element in this whole matter. If the use of certain language by an hon. member causes a disturbance or some trouble in the House, that also becomes a factor which I must take into account when ruling on such unparliamentary language. The hon. member was not, obviously, insulted since when the comments were made he did not even notice, nor did he immediately bring up the matter the next day. I believe it is a bit late to complain about what the hon. member considers to have been unparliamentary language, and I would ask him not to pursue his point.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I thought I explained quite clearly to you that it happened on December 2 and that I had read the comments in Hansard on December 3 as I sat at my desk after question period and the point of time for raising such matters had passed. This is the earliest opportunity on which I could raise the matter. I could not hear the comment at the time because of the noise in the House as the hon. member for Athabasca was making his opening remarks. On that basis, Madam Speaker, I would like you to recognize it at this time because I think these activities are indicative of the way the Conservatives conduct themselves in this House, in an unstatesmanlike manner. I would like you to accept my point of order at this time on the basis that I was not here that evening. I read it the following day, this being the next day after having read it in Hansard. I would like you to accept it, please, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: What I can accept is that the hon. member has made a point. He has complained about the way the hon. member has referred to him in his speech. That does not either constitute a question of privilege or a point of order. These kinds of exchanges occur in the House and inasmuch as they do not create too much disturbance, the Chair is not obligated to intervene.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 748, 1,429, 1,527, 1,574, 1,654, 1,655 and 1,656.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of Agriculture and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: In so far as
Agriculture Canada is concerned, the answer is:
(a)	Ninety-one administrative contracts-Total cost $710,000 (82 of which are "special consultants"-Electronic Data Processing (EDP) related). See list.
(b)	Eight policy contracts-Total cost $123,007.80. See list
In so far as the Agricultural Stabilization Board is concerned, the answer is:
(a)	Three administrative contracts-Total cost $30,913.27. See list C attached.
(b)	None.
In so far as the Canadian Dairy Commission is concerned, the answer is:
(a)	Four administrative contracts-Total cost $143,020. See list D attached.
(b)	None.
In so far as the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is concerned, the answer is: (a) and (b) None.
In so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, the answer is: (a) and (b) None.
List A
Administrative Contracts
August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980
Name	Number of Contracts	CostP. S. Ross	1	$ 50,000Susan Leah	1	24,380Ruth Brown	1	500Margaret Smiley Jon Kieran (Steppac	1	2,250Group) DPW-Cost Benefit	1	38,800Study Bureau of Management	1	5,000Consultants-DSS Peat, Marwick &	1	7,000Partners	1	60,745J. Beaton	1	2,760 Total $191,435Bailey & Rose Ltd. Bonaventure Design &	22	$160,443Programming J.A. Shienfield &	2	9,977Associates	1	4,250S. & S. Software Federal Systems of	3	18,027Canada	7	68,375Data Logic	5	37,033Microtime	12	67,599Multiple Access	3	19,593
December 4, 1980

Prior Data Science Ltd.	1	8,687Sonelleco Systems Ltd.	1	1,075Systemshouse Ltd.	4	23,487System Approach Ltd.	6	24,111Mobius Software	10	60,538Quasar Systems	3	8,095TEE Consulting	1	3,600Dieter Frey	1	3,675 Total $518,565
Note: The above are all "special consultants"-EDP related
Name
Dr. Campbell of National Research Consultants Drouin, Paquin & Associates
Bureau of Management Consultants of DSS Susan McCoy Philippe Garigue G. Hopkin F.M. Kirk K. au-Young
Administrative Contracts
List B
Number of Contracts
1
1

1
August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980
Cost


[Stage Direction]
857.00 Total $123,007.80
Name
Administrative Contracts
Number of Contracts
List C
August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980
Cost
Cooper Lybrand Systemshouse Ltd.
1	$ 8,935.27
2	21,978.00
Total $30,913.27
Order Paper Questions
2. What is the total amount being paid in pension benefits and what would be the cost to give a 50 per cent increase in the pension now being paid to survivors and their dependents?
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. On February 1, 1980, all pensions paid under the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act were increased by 5.3 per cent. The Halifax explosion pension account is carefully examined each year, and an actuarial forecast of expenditures is prepared. Based on this forecast of expenditures and revenues received by the trust fund, the amount of pension paid to the recipients is established for the next period. It is intended to adjust pension payments annually, but any adjustment will be made to take into account the actuarial realities. With the exception of these annual increases, there are no plans at this time to further increase these awards.
2. The pensions now being paid cost $12,965.63 per month or $ 155,587.56 per annum. To increase them by 50 per cent would cost $6,482.81 monthly or $77,793.72 per annum. The department of insurance has estimated that it would require a deposit of $644,500 into the trust fund, to provide such an increase.


Mr. Mazankowski: What is the Minister of Transport's position on the Airport Management Task Force and its recommendations with respect to the management of the department's airports?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: 1 have not yet formulated a final position concerning the recommendations of the Task Force on Airport Management. I expect to discuss the task force findings with my colleagues in the near future.
List D
Administrative Contracts
August 1, 1978 to May 2, 1980
Name	Number of Contracts	Cost
D. A. Biggs, University
of Waterloo	1	$	1,254
Bureau of Management
Consulting-DSS	1	89,391S. Bancroft	1	31,600
Systemshouse
(Computer Study)	1	20,775
Total $143,020


Mr. Crosby: I. Did the government take any action in respect to a motion passed under Standing Order 43 on December 6, 1979, respecting the increase of pension benefits to injured survivors of the Halifax explosion and their dependents and, if so, what was such action?


Mr. Howie: What developments are planned for the Fredericton, New Brunswick Airport and what is the time-frame in which these are intended to be accomplished?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The following developments are planned for Fredericton Airport:
1981/82: Enlarge reservoir & upgrade pumps Upgrade field electrical facility 1982/83: Upgrade waste water treatment plant Perimeter fencing Extend firehall
1983/84: Expand air terminal building
Replace boiler-Central heating plant 1984/85: Resurface public car park 1985/86: Resurface aircraft parking apron.

December 4, 1980
Order Paper Questions
The implementation of these projects will be subject to Treasury Board approval, national priorities and the availability of funds.


Mr. Cossitt: Were the two cabinet ministers sent to London, England, in October, 1980, on the matter of the constitution, Anglophones and, if so, for what reason was there no Francophone representation?


David Michael Collenette: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is responsible for relations between Canada and other countries, and the Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology, who shares responsibility with the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development for the constitutional patriation process, travelled to the United Kingdom to acquaint Her Majesty the Queen and leading members of parliament with the proposals of the Government of Canada concerning the Canadian Constitution. A greater number of ministers was not required. If any questions had been posed in the French language, both ministers could and would have responded in the same language. Both ministers have extensive professional and parliamentary credentials in constitutional matters.


Mr. Cossitt: Was any consideration given by the government to sending the Minister of Transport to London, England, in October, 1980, as part of the cabinet delegation on the constitution in view of (a) the fact that he is a Francophone (b) his acknowledged experience on the matter of Canadian unity and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, for what reason was he not sent?


David Michael Collenette: See reply to question No. 1,654 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: Was the Minister of the Environment sent to London, England, in October, 1980, to meet with British officials in regard to the matter of the constitution and, if so (a) for what reason (b) is there any aspect of the Department of the Environment's activities that have anything whatsoever to do with patriating the constitution?


David Michael Collenette: See reply to question No. 1,654 answered this day.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 3, consideration in committee of Bill C-47, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Pinard- Mr. Ethier in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-47, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1981. When the committee rose on Wednesday, December 3, 1980, Vote no. 1 under Transport was under consideration, and the hon. member for Mississauga North had the floor.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT:
Vote No. 1.


Mr. Fisher:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we ended our discussion yesterday I had some questions that I directed to the Minister of Transport to learn from him our progress following the passage of the bill dealing with the transportation of hazardous goods. At that time I pointed out to him that questions had been raised in Mississauga about the follow-up to that bill and there had been comments made, particularly by the mayor, that a year ago the federal presence was not adequate. It is my feeling that considerable progress has now been made. 1 posed some questions to the minister about inspection procedures, about negotiations with the provinces, about budgets, and about a variety of other areas. I hope that the minister will take this occasion to answer these questions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will do so as rapidly as I can in order to release more time for any of my hon. friends who care to have it.
We are talking about transportation of dangerous goods. The member for Mississauga North asked me a number of very specific questions. He asked me if the bill had been proclaimed, and it has. I think November 1 was the date. He asked me if other provinces had adhered to the legislation because this is what is meant to happen, as he knows. This is legislation that is open to the provinces to come into, not only legislatively but administratively. There was a meeting of
December 4, 1980

ministers of transport in Toronto some weeks ago at which time I pleaded-1 didn't sink to my knees, but almost-that they would come in, that they would pass their own legislation or orders in council in order to satisfy the objective of this legislation which is a co-operative federal-provincial approach to matters of transportation for dangerous goods.
Ontario is going ahead and I understand B.C. is preparing itself for that too. I am using this opportunity again to remind them although I am sure they have not forgotten, and to plead with my provincial colleagues that they will move as rapidly as possible in order to give this legislation the full federal-provincial use it is meant to have.
The regulations are in their fourth draft. Final consultation is taking place with interested groups and we hope to have the regulations gazetted-I do not know where the accent is-by next summer.
The hon. member for Mississauga North asked me how many inspectors we would have, and here we are witnessing an evolving situation. The legislation is not applicable yet in terms of the regulations not being available yet, but the department and the transport commission are preparing themselves for the time when it will be. By way of illustration, I understand that the CTC had seven specialists, experts, inspectors, and we have added four to that, so now there are more than 11 altogether. They are going to be specialists in the transportation of dangerous goods. Similarly, I understand the department is hiring, or has hired, six air inspectors who are already in position in the different regions of the country. They are going to be specialists in the transportation of dangerous goods by air. This is just to indicate that progress is being made. I want to use this opportunity to thank members of the transportation committee who have worked extremely well during the last part of the session to bring about this result.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Because the regulations are still being negotiated with industry, and because the minister and the CTC are still trying to set their priorities on these matters, I would like to stress now the importance of what I think is a crucial element, the importance of good inspection, particularly with the railroads. It seems to me that our policy up to this point has been to trust the railroads and to trust the companies, and it seems to me, as well, that that places an unfair burden on the companies. The companies exist to make a profit, to provide good service for their customers, and to keep their trains rolling on time. They have a variety of other concerns, and safety has to fit in with those concerns. It seems to me that the question of safety must be the first concern for any public body. That has to be the fundamental question that we examine.
The minister mentioned that the Ontario government has already committed itself to follow our legislation and to cooperate with it. They have already started with problems associated with truck shipments. I would like to use that as an example. When trucks in Ontario are carrying dangerous goods, they will be subjected to a wide range of inspection. They will be regularly examined at weigh stations. They will be subject to inspection by provincial police authorities and by
Supply
local police authorities. The companies will be able to maintain their own standards and they will be able to seek their own goals to try to get a profit, but the public will also be assured that the trucking industry will have a degree of safety because of the regular inspections that will occur. I am not so sure that we can make that same claim today about our railroad system.
We do not inspect our trains as thoroughly as Ontario will be inspecting the trucks that run on its highways. I think the public should be given the assurance that we will upgrade inspection procedures, because public safety is such an important question. I would very much appreciate a few comments from the minister about his plans to improve the inspection and general safety procedures of the railways.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I can make is that we are moving similarly on the question of the safety of railway transportation.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Chairman, I am almost certain the hon. member has had his allotted 20 minutes.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The Chairman is guided by the clerks who always check the time allotted to speakers. Each speaker is allowed 20 minutes. I am sure that when the allotted 20 minutes have expired, the clerks will advise me and I will notify members.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, similar movement is taking place with respect to railway safety, which is more of a preoccupation of the CTC. My understanding is that the CTC expects to increase their force by 30 inspectors. I thought I had referred already to the presence of 11 dangerous goods inspectors. However, as my hon. friend knows, all these things are subject to national priorities as well as to the approval of Treasury Board. Much as I would like to be more enthusiastic, I must throw some cold water on these expectations because I know this hope will be subject to very close analysis.
On the subject of railway transportation, there was some news in yesterday's newspaper which I must rectify. It was reported that the Grange report had been tabled. The Grange report concerns the railway derailment at Mississauga, and my hon. friend is aware of that. We have, however, received the draft of the report of Mr. Justice Grange, who is using the facilities of the department for printing and translation purposes. I want to emphasize that I have not seen it nor will I look at it because I understand Mr. Justice Grange wants to present his report to me personally early in January. If there are leaks, they will not be from me, my office, or from officials in the Department of Transport. This is a service which the Department of Transport is giving to Mr. Justice Grange. He requested this service, the purpose being to use administrative facilities which exist, instead of creating new ones.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to underline what the minister has just said. Inspection for railroads is indeed a question of priorities. When we take a look at the issues, the

December 4, 1980
Supply
expense involved in providing numerous and proper inspectors is not as great an expense as providing for some of the other facilities in the ministry. Perhaps the minister will take as my representation this comment about the importance of the inspectors. More people benefit from adequate rail inspection than would benefit from some of the other facilities which his department finances.
When the Mississauga accident happened, it covered a geographic area extending approximately one-half mile away from the railway tracks. According to Statistics Canada there are some 250,000 people living one-half mile from the CPR tracks between Streetsville and Agincourt. Those people are vulnerable whenever a train carrying dangerous goods runs along that track. When we start to examine vulnerability in that sense, we begin to see how important is the question of public safety.
1 want to congratulate the minister for increasing the number of specialists, but I hope that he will take a look at the whole question of rail safety and inspection and increase the number of inspectors, perhaps at the sacrifice of other facilities until he can provide funding for them as well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, by way of a caveat I should note, and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with what I have to say, that people listening to us might wonder whether those are the only inspectors the Canadian Transport Commission has and they will be surprised at how few there are. The CTC and the department inspectors are not there to replace the inspection made by the railways or by the airlines. They are there to inspect the inspectors. They are there to monitor what the inspectors have already inspected. There is practically nothing which can replace people's efforts-


Donald W. Munro: You have exceeded your four minutes.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I have heard certain unpleasant remarks about the time allotted to certain members. I would like all members to know that the hon. member for Mississauga North had six minutes last night and 14 minutes today, and that makes 20 minutes. That is the time allotment which will be accorded to each member.


Mr. Hargrave:: Mr. Chairman, I have a short intervention. First, 1 would like to express my thanks to the member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain for allowing me to speak at this time because I have a commitment to keep later on this afternoon. His courtesy is most appreciated.
I want to talk briefly about the movement of grain by rail all across southern Alberta in 1980. As I am sure the minister is aware, southern Alberta is served almost entirely by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is only a short CNR branch line coming into the northern part of that whole southern area.
Nineteen-eighty has not been a good grain shipping year, particularly when it comes to the railways. It should have been much better. After all, most of the usually severe winter months were wide open. There were no reasons why almost
normal summer rail movement could not have been maintained. So, it was not because of the weather. However, there were two main situations which contributed to this poor grain movement throughout most of 1980. First, there was the labour situation on the Revelstoke subdivision line which is in the interior of British Columbia which went on for months. The Revelstoke line is part of the main line of the CPR.
There was hardly any mention of the labour strike in the newspapers. It did not make headlines, and the public at large were not aware of the situation. Perhaps even those in southern Alberta did not realize it was a most serious factor until the situation was almost over. However, I am sure the minister is aware of this. The situation was caused by a small portion of a railway union. There were perhaps as few as 20 members who objected rather strenuously to the fact they had difficulty in getting one hot meal a day away from their base. That seemed to be the main thrust of the complaints. As a result, there was a horrendous holdup of massive amounts of prairie grain shipments which should have gone forward throughout the several months this strike was in progress.
The Grain Transportation Authority had suggested a goal of 1,500 unloads per week for this main line of the CPR of which the Revelstoke subdivision is a part. The 1,500 unloads of grain, not total, per week was their objective. During the strike that unload figure dropped to between 600 and 800, less than half the objective. By week number ten, the Revelstoke labour strike situation caused a shortfall of up to 5,000 cars of grain. That, of course, was in addition to all other commodities which were held up during the same period because of the strike. It made a fantastic difference to the shipments out of southern Alberta as that is the one rail system which serves us most of the time. It is true some of our grain is shipped through Thunder Bay, but most is over the CP mainline through the Revelstoke subdivision.
The second factor which contributed to this was that, when the new hard red spring quotas were announced at the beginning of the current crop year, there were no quotas allocated to the four shipping blocks which covered all of southern Alberta. This really hurt the grain shippers at that time. I need not dwell on it too long because I am sure the minister and his parliamentary secretary are aware of how urgently needed these early quotas are in order for farmers to have their cash requirements, meet their accounts payable, and so on. For some considerable time there was no quota for all for southern Alberta. In fact it was the only region in the designated Wheat Board area where there were no quotas for hard red spring wheat.
There are two questions I wish to ask the minister. First, there must be some built-in routine to deal with selected key railway strikes, such as that in the Revelstoke subdivision which tied up millions of bushels of grain movement to the west coast. It tied it up at the most critical time of the year when normally the maximum volume of grain should be moved. It could not have happened at a worse time with
December 4, 1980

respect to the traditional volume moving time. Will the minister indicate what action he has taken on this specific situation, and what policy changes he feels would be appropriate to prevent such critical holdups in our grain handling situation in the future?
The second question arising out of this dissertation I have been enlarging on with the minister is with regard to grain quotas or, more properly, the lack of grain quotas in southern Alberta. Why should all of southern Alberta be the only region in western Canada to be completely deprived of a hard red spring wheat quota, as it was at the beginning of the crop season this year? It lasted for two and a half months.
It is rather significant that I raised this matter with the minister in private conversation, and again raised it in a motion under Standing Order 43 a day or two later. That was in October, I think. Within one or two days, the initial quota was finally announced. It is less than proper that I should have to stand here and ask for quotas which should have been almost automatically struck for hard red spring wheat at the opening of the quota year.
I want to give the minister plenty of time to reply. The minister will know that the strike I have been talking about ended on November 6. While it is now over, the situation we went through surely suggests that a policy must be arrived at to prevent such a holdup in the future. I would appreciate a response from the minister to the two situations in question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: First, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Revel-stroke situation, this is a situation my hon. friend and I have been aware of for a number of months. I must say that on some days I was rather impatient, but I must underline the fact that a good number of people worked at trying to solve this labour problem. The grain co-ordinator, whom the hon. member referred to, was involved, as well as the CTC western branch and, obviously, the Department of Labour. I understand there were some agreements reached, but they could not be implemented. There was frustration all the way through. I might say that I do not think this is a problem for the Minister of Transport. It is a really a problem of labour relations and, consequently, I will pass it on to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
This morning 1 was looking at the figures with regard to the west coast. The hon. member went through the different weeks. I have week 17. Possibly I am one week ahead of him. 1 noted that over-all deliveries in Canada were 6.5 per cent higher this year over last year. Therefore the situation is good. This would have been even better without the problems referred to by the hon. member.
On the west coast this year 47,309 cars were unloaded, compared to 46,786 last year. Already the delay has been made up, partly due to a good interchange between CN and CP, particularly in Vancouver. Therefore the situation has picked up.
I might observe in passing that the "vessels waiting" situation is good. There are only two ships on the west coast and none in Thunder Bay. Although the strike caused a difficult
Supply
situation, fortunately the delivery schedule was not damaged to any considerable extent. I agree with the hon. member that situations such as this should not be allowed to drag on unnecessarily, but that is the price of democracy. We must accept a certain amount of that if we want to accept that principle. My parliamentary secretary might want to talk about hard red wheat.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat knows better than I that quotas are always established by the Wheat Board. When this matter was drawn to our attention, it was also referred to the Wheat Board in order to try to rectify the situation. We appreciate how important it is for the producers of southern Alberta to get their quota early so that they can have some income from their early spring wheat. Other than that, I have nothing to report.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if I may just add to that, unfortunately I do not have the information regarding the quotas with me at the moment. I attended to the situation the hon. member described, as quickly as possible. I was told that the necessary adjustments were made and deliveries were taking place normally. More recently, I understand that some grains from this area were included in a sale to the Soviet Union. The board assured me through the minister responsible that there would be no problem with regard to the sale of red spring wheat from southern Alberta in the coming year. They will be able to sell everything that is available.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the minister for a little amplification on the matter of the aftermath of the railroad strike. I appreciate the minister's response, but surely the situation warrants some action by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour, to whom he suggested he would pass the buck. Is the minister going to take this matter up with the Minister of Labour in order to try to come up with a policy to handle the situation a little better and in a more alert fashion, as I am sure it is only a matter of time until this occurs again?
With regard to the quota situation, I appreciate the sudden response we got after my Standing Order 43 motion, and I thank the minister for that. However, neither he nor his parliamentary secretary responded on why southern Alberta was discriminated against in the first place. It had to be the only area throughout the western prairies without a hard red spring wheat quota for several months.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am a bit frustrated because I had a card which demonstrated that the situation was not as serious as indicated. The Canadian Wheat Board gave the delivery permit at the right moment, but I cannot prove it because it was all indicated on the card I had. I will gladly send a copy when it is recovered. Just to assure the hon. member that the situation will be attended to, although at the moment I am sure it does not exist in the sense that the farmers in this area are not being handicapped regarding delivery quotas. I will assure the hon. member that this will remain that way. With respect to

December 4, 1980
Supply
the Revelstoke situation, I will talk again to the Minister of Labour and see what he can do.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to use some of my time to talk about the pensions available to railway workers. I am sure this will come as no surprise to the Minister of Transport, and I hope he may surprise me by offering to be a little more active on this matter than he and his predecessors have been.
Before 1 get into that subject, I should like to take a moment to register my very strong protest against the issuing of the permit for the building of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass in the city of Winnipeg. I realize that there are those-I refer to people in some other parts of the city of Winnipeg-who favour this overpass, but I stand here speaking on behalf of people who live on either side of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks and who will be affected by the building of this structure.
The people who live in the Sherbrook Street area just south of the CPR tracks, and the people who live in the McGregor Street area just north of the CPR tracks, are in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. The prospect is very bleak to some of them with respect to what the building of this structure will do to those areas on either side of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks.
I am leaving the main remarks on this to be made by one of my other colleagues from Winnipeg, depending on how many of them are able to take part in today's debate. Any one of them, be it the member for Winnipeg North, Winnipeg-St. James or Winnipeg-Birds Hill, can make the case. As a matter of fact, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport were on this side of the House he would make the case too. He knows what this structure is going to do to the area that I represent, and to the whole of downtown Winnipeg. We think it is a mistake. This decision is an insensitive one and, as I say, if my colleagues get the floor today they will join me in this protest we make against this permit having been issued.
I said, however, that I want to speak mainly about the pensions of railway workers, and to make an appeal to the Minister of Transport. I wish I could see his face.


An hon. Member:: What for?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the help that the public servants are giving to the minister, but I am very serious about this. I would like the Minister of Transport to quit being a messenger boy who reports to the president of Canadian National Railways and the president of Canadian Pacific Railway that certain members in the House of Commons are raising issues about the pensions of railway workers. After all, both of those railways owe their existence to the government and the Parliament of Canada, and both of those railways get all kinds of financial assistance from the taxpayers of Canada through this Parliament and through the government.
I think the Minister of Transport has the responsibility to discuss seriously with those railways their unfairness to their
pensioners and the several aspects of the matter. I have gone over this issue so many times that I hardly need to go over it again, but let me sketch the main points which are disappointing to railway pensioners.
First may I say that we have lost a decade on this issue. Back in the early 1970s we were pressing pretty hard. Motions were passed by various committees, we thought something would happen, and then the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who was then minister of labour, arranged-and we welcomed it-for the setting up of an industrial inquiry commission into railway pension plans. He did this at a time when we were trying to settle a railway dispute and, since pensions were not included in the settlement, the setting up of this industrial inquiry commission was supposed to relieve our minds.
It took two or three years for that commission, headed by Dr. Noel Hall, to produce a report. It finally came down in 1976. By that time we had lost two or three years in the seventies, and then that report did what so many reports do- it began to collect dust.
Here we are four years later, and very little that was recommended in that report has been implemented. For example, it urged very strongly that the Canadian Pacific Railway be called upon to put its pension arrangements at least on a par with those of Canadian National Railways, and then it called on both railways to improve their pension plans. There was a proposal for the setting up of a heritage fund-this was even before that name became so well known in Alberta in another connection-out of which moneys might be available to index, escalate, or supplement the pensions of retired railway workers.
Back in the early days of escalation when some pensions were being indexed by a percentage point, or by two percentage points, the railways did it for a while. Canadian National did it first, and Canadian Pacific did it a little, but there never has been an acceptance of the proposition that railway pensions ought to be escalated automatically year by year in accordance at least with the rise in the cost of living, and in recent years things have fallen so far behind that older pensioners are way out of line in their incomes with what has happened to the rise in the cost of living.
As 1 say, I think it is time that the Minister of Transport played a role more than that of a messenger boy. He should talk to the railways about their responsibility to meet the retirement needs of their former workers. The ones who are still working, of course, have a chance through collective bargaining to try to win certain improvements in their pension plans, and they have won some improvements. The main desire on the part of those who are still working is that there be provisions for early retirement without penalty for such early retirement but, as I say, the main group of persons on behalf of whom I plead are the retired railway workers at both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific whose pensions have gone way out of line with the cost of living.
December 4, 1980

I urge very strongly that the minister act on this. If I repeat myself, I apologize, but I will do it anyway. So often when we raise matters like this the minister simply stands up and says, "I will make this known to the president of Canadian National or the president of Canadian Pacific". Well, it is time they were told what they ought to do.
In this connection there is a reform in pensions which simply has to come. I assert that it has to come in all pension plans, not just in those of railway workers, but what better place to start than with the railway workers, since the railways receive so much assistance from the taxpayers and the people of Canada generally? I refer to the provisions in both railway pension plans regarding widows. It is a rule that is in many other plans, but that does not make it right. That does not detract from the fact that it is antiquated and does not fit modern thinking at all.
Both railways have the provision that if a pensioner dies there is a 50 per cent pension for his widow, but if the wife dies first and the old man lives on as a widower, his pension is 100 per cent. Compared with the days when pension plans did not provide any survivor benefit, of course that was something to crow about, but surely in this day, when we say we believe in equality between men and women, there is no justification for continuing that arrangement in a pension plan under which, if the woman dies first, the husband receives a 100 per cent pension, but if the husband dies first the woman receives only a 50 per cent pension.
Various suggestions have been made about this. Some suggest that it should be 100 per cent for the first year, and then something like 75 per cent. Any improvement would be an improvement. I suppose one could say that we do not look for the ultimate right off the bat, but I suspect that if I were a woman standing here I would say, why not? If it is fair to do it, and to put women in an equal place with men in this respect, why not do it now? Why wait for a decade or two down the road? I urge very strongly that the minister press upon both railways that it is time to recast their plans so far as the pensions of widows are concerned.
As I have already said, if I were a woman I would plead for the perfect plan right now, but surely at least there should be a provision for widows to get 75 per cent of the pension instead of only 50 per cent, and if it meant that there would have to be some adjustment to put it on an equal basis, such that either survivor would get 90 per cent instead of one getting 100 per cent and the other 50 per cent, something like that might be worked out.
I have discovered in my work in the field of pensions that this has become an issue across the board which is felt pretty strongly. More people have pension plans now than was the case when I first came to this House of Commons, so they are aware of these things. Workers are getting older. Veterans are getting older, and they are getting more concerned about their widows than they were some years ago. But this is one of the important things railways workers do press, and I would like to see the minister go to the mat with the two railways on it.
Supply
Speaking of widows, there is another provision which still exists and which seems to me out of date, and that is the provision which says that the widow of a railway worker gets no pension if she married the worker after he retired. In most cases where this happens, she is the second wife. I have quite a job trying to explain to some of these widows that it is not because they are the second wives but because they married after the husbands retired. However, they still come back with the point that the contribution was made. It was there. There are cases in which the second marriage lasted longer than the first marriage, and yet we have the older railway worker having contributed to the plan and facing the prospect that he might die first and leave his widow, in the knowledge that if that widow was married to him after he retired, there is no pension for her at all. If this requires some adjustment in the rates, or some actuarial changes, let us make them, but surely it is time for us to move forward in this area.
1 know a few years back there were pension plans which had no survivor benefit at all, so it was a great thing to achieve a survivor benefit of 50 per cent. But surely we do not stop there. Surely fairness, and the concept that men and women should be equal, should apply.
Someone may come back and say, "What about the other way when it is the wife who works, dies, and leaves a pension?" I am for that too, but the experience so far is largely that it is the man who is the wage earner and who is out there in industry or out there in the workaday world. But surely we do not have to argue any more that what he is able to do is very largely made possible by the support of his wife and by her maintaining of the home and raising the family, and there should not be any second-class status so far as the wife is concerned.
I want to leave the minister time to answer these points, and for me to answer him if that should be necessary, so I will leave it at that. I would be glad to have his comment on the first point I raised, even though some colleague of mine will raise it later today. That first point was the unfairness to the people of my constituency, as a result of granting the permit for the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. However, in the main I would like to hear from him now on what he is going to do in terms of talking turkey to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National about putting the indexing of railway pensions on an automatic basis fully equal to the rise in the cost of living, and about doing something to put pensions to the widows of railway workers on a basis that is fair and equal.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, my learned parliamentary secretary will answer questions on the overpass when they come.
I will try-very rapidly, for obvious reasons-to deal with the pension situation. The first time my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, raised this question, I paid great attention and went about finding out if that was one of my main responsibilities. I was told a number of things. The first was that the determination of pension is the subject of contractual agreements between employers and employees. I know that if the hon. member were in my position he would want to decide what should be paid in all agencies of govern-
5336

December 4, 1980
Supply
ment, but I think on second thought he might not want to do so. Anyway, I do not determine the salaries and pensions of Canadians employed by government agencies. With respect to government departments, for example, that is in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board, and I was told in no uncertain terms that this was the subject of negotiation and that it was not under the authority of the Minister of Transport. So today I behaved like a good messenger boy.
I asked the parliamentary secretary to find out from the Minister of Labour whether he has something to say on the subject, and 1 will gladly give him some of my time when he comes back. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that I spoke to the president of CN on these matters and invited him to be generous in them. 1 know something about this because my father was a CN employee for 45 years. If I am here today, it is most certainly because of the good wages which CN has paid to its employees throughout these decades. I think CN has been a good employer. That was the reputation it had when my father was with that company. Their pension plan in particular was good. So 1 am quite sure that my hon. friend does not wish to chastise CN. He just wants it to give better and better treatment to its employees, and I compliment him on that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are talking about pensioners, not employees.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To become a pensioner you must have been an employee first, and then you become a pensioner, following which an adjustment is made to the pension plan-


Denis Éthier: 1 regret to interrupt the minister, but the agreement is that the 20 minutes must be shared between the questioner and the member who answers the question.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to participate in discussion on these estimates. I should like to open my remarks by congratulating the backbench members of the Liberal party for taking advantage of this long lost opportunity of bringing up problems not only affecting their own constituencies but of the country as a whole, because this is the only occasion that parliamentarians have to put their viewpoints and their problems before the minister with a chance of them being heard. However, I should like to congratulate in particular, on behalf of all backbenchers of every parliament in the world, the young member for Manicouagan for the contribution he made yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not
think that any person who heard his remarks could have failed to hear that he was speaking for every backbencher of every party which has ever sat in parliament. The trouble we have as members of Parliament in breaking through this tremendous
mess of an overloaded bureaucracy, and in trying to resolve simple problems, is one of the heaviest loads we bear, so I think the hon. member for Manicouagan is owed a debt by all of us for speaking so frankly.
It is expected of us in the opposition to try to put our best foot forward on these estimates and to try to get our points across, so I will attempt to do the same thing. I think you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that the points made by the opposition yesterday and today have been largely constructive and helpful to the minister. This gives the minister arguments which he can use with his officials and with his colleagues in cabinet and the Treasury Board to get some changes made a little more expeditiously.
I should like to speak on two subjects. The first one deals with the Canadian Wheat Board. Even though I address my remarks to the minister, I know the parliamentary secretary will be listening. My remarks are very brief. It is a request to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport to ask the minister in the other place in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to put before his legal officials an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act to correct an injustice which takes place from time to time in the administration of that act. I am referring to the fact that a regulation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act gives the farmers the right to ask if they may transfer their payments from the pool in one crop year to the next pool. That right was granted by Parliament through this regulation of the Canadian Wheat Board to all producers under the Wheat Board's jurisdiction. In effect, that right is denied to farmers who hold permits under the Canadian Wheat Board Act because of a condition which occurs periodically.
I have the details on what I am now saying but I will put it in general terms. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, every farmer has the right to deliver to the elevator of his choice a number of bushels of grain up to the amount of the quota allocated to him. The technique of doing that is that the Wheat Board asks the leading elevator company how much space is available for a certain type of grain. When the report comes in and the railway cars are dispatched to pick it up, every producer in that elevator area has the right, equal to that of every other producer, to deliver that grain.
When a mistake is made, and the figures given as to the amount of space that is available and the amount of grain on the farms do not match up so that a number of farmers in the area cannot get the allocated bushels into the elevator in that crop year, then the Wheat Board Act allows for an extended delivery period. But the Canadian Wheat Board Act says very precisely that if a person delivers grain during an extended crop period beyond July 31, he must become part of the pool of that crop year which ends on July 31, which takes away from that producer, through a mistake made by someone else, his right to deliver that grain during that crop year and put the grain into the elevator in the next crop year for pooling purposes of the final payment. It is not a deliberate and evil contradiction, it is a normal thing which happens in the
December 4, 1980

administration of a complicated marketing system such as we have.
The minister knows all about this. He has spoken to producers who have had trouble in that regard, and he knows that these matters were brought to the Canadian Wheat Board, which treated the matter facetiously and said, "You lost out in the gamble." I am asking the parliamentary secretary to take this up with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and to tell him that the first thing to do is to adopt a simple amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The second thing to do, in my view, is that when an injustice is done and mistakes are made, the principle of compensation should be considered and accepted.
The incident I spoke about happened in 1978, over two years ago. One company, which I will not name, found out about this injustice because several farmers who had delivered grain to their elevator could not get their grain in, as they had the right to do on an order of the Canadian Wheat Board, and had to deliver their grain during an extended marketing period. So they lost their right to go to the next pool. The company compensated those producers for their loss. But another grain company said to its customer in the same situation, "No, you lost the gamble, you did not get it in." We know that it must have been either the fault of the grain company that it had not informed the Wheat Board accurately, or it was the fault of the Wheat Board that they issued the order without knowing exactly what the situation was. The fault does not lie with the producer.
It is no use going to the Canadian Wheat Board and asking for their advice in this matter.
No civil servant at any level ever wants to disclose a mistake. So I am asking the parliamentary secretary to speak very candidly to the minister who understands this type of thing, and ask him whether he could get his legal officers to correct an error which exists in the present Wheat Board Act and which makes it impossible to carry out the regulation dealing with joining in the second pool. I think that is fairly simple to those people who understand the situation.
If the Hansard record is shown to the minister, I am sure he will consider my requests. The first request is for an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and the second request is to consider compensation being paid by whoever is responsible for the mistake. Either the Wheat Board or the grain company, either one or the other, should compensate the farmer who loses out through no fault of his own.
I should like to deal with railway transportation and the Hall commission report. When the report came down, speaking on behalf of the official opposition 1 stated that it was the magna carta of western producers. One reason why I made that statement was that the government periodically was under heavy pressure to change the Crowsnest rates which farmers consider to be a moral agreement that should not be destroyed. The Hall commission recommended that the Crowsnest rates
Supply
be retained, but it laid down a positive, constructive proposal, showing how it would not cost the railways anything.
In very simple, blunt terms, the proposal was that railways should haul more than just grain. Every Canadian knows that the bulk of the wealth of Canada comes from the area west of the Great Lakes. Not only grain produces that wealth. Every year there is a rise in the number of shipments of every type of product. The products about which I am talking at this moment are the bulk ones which are most suitably carried on railways, particularly potash and coal.
The Government of Canada, along with the government of the United States, signed an agreement in good faith on approximately February 18, 1980. It committed the coal reserves of the United States and Canada to Europe and Japan. We will do all we can to supply their desperate need for coal over the next 40 or 50 years. If one looks at where the coal is located and the quantities necessary to meet the rising demands of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the entire Asian theatre, as well as the demand in Europe, one realizes that it amounts to many millions of tonnes per year and that this coal for Europe can only come from Saskatchewan and Alberta. Of course the coal for the Pacific market will come from British Columbia. I am talking about thermal coal, but it applies also to metallurgic coal.
If one looks at where coal is located in Saskatchewan and Alberta, one will soon find out that it is in the southern part of Saskatchewan and in the northwestern part of Alberta. I am not talking about the Crowsnest deposit which is orientated toward the Pacific market. In order to make it physically possible, we need a north-south railroad, from southern Saskatchewan going north into Churchill. All the parts of that railway are in place now as joint sections between the east-west lines going into Churchill, except for three little gaps.
If we want to send ten million tonnes of coal a year to Europe, it means the Churchill port will have to be kept open eight to ten months a year. We can do that, and the department is working on it. If we take ten million tonnes of coal out of Alberta and Saskatchewan at a freight rate several times per tonne greater than that at which wheat is carried, we will provide an income for the railways as great as the income from carrying all grain. If we ship an extra four or five million tonnes of potash a year through Churchill, which is the direct route, to the European market, the railways will earn four or five times more than they would carrying the same weight in wheat.
The incomes of the railways sharing in that carriage will be doubled or tripled by the simple act of completing the railway from southern Saskatchewan up to Churchill. The cost of building these little links is small, except for the engineering difficulties of crossing the Qu'Appelle River. It fits into the Hall commission report to build a new grain terminal elevator in Yorkton so that the dry protein grain of the south can be mixed with the lower protein grains of the north in order to increase the standards of grain to the levels wanted by the European market. It will be a direct route to Europe, so we

December 4, 1980
Supply
will double the wheat movement, not to mention feed grains which are increasingly needed in Europe.
The minister knows about this. He has indicated a favourable attitude toward it, but his only hurdle to overcome is to convince one railway company that the rewards of getting across the Qu'Appelle River are far greater than the cost of getting across it. Engineers have known for some time how to do it.
The government of Saskatchewan is very anxious to move coal and potash into the markets of the world. Because of the surveys conducted in the last five years, we now know more thoroughly how much potash and coal there is in Canada. I think the plans of the provincial government of Saskatchewan for developing the Qu'Appelle River could be combined with the needs of the railway to get across the river, and the solution would be beneficial to the province of Saskatchewan and to all the people of Canada. We would be able to complete our obligations under the agreement to provide coal to Europe and Japan.
What I have just described is not mentioned in the Hall commission report. In chapter 9 or 10 it deals with how we can make the railways pay for themselves by hauling more products. I have given, in quantative amounts, the rough parameters on how to make a north-south railway in eastern Saskatchewan pay for itself. Not only will it help the entire country, but certainly it will relieve the pressure on western grain producers which hangs over their heads like the Sword of Damocles, that some silly ass some day will say that we must change the Crowsnest rates.
In 1966 the minister of transport admitted in the House that there was no necessity to change the Crowsnest rates if the railways were making money out of hauling. So, let us make money for the railways in spite of themselves, but it must be done with the strong, strong support of the Minister of Transport. We cannot talk to the railways as we would talk to a group of music teachers. They must understand just one thing-they must be able to explain to their directors and shareholders why they are turning down the opportunity to make money. Once we have said that loud and clear to the railway company heads, they will agree, because they would not dare to stand before their directors and shareholders denying that they should make money.
I would think my remarks are sufficient and hopeful enough to get the minister really interested. He should not take the attitude that he wants to learn more; he should simply get out there and say, "This is what we want to do; let us find the difficulties and clear them up one after the other". In so doing there are several small things he must remember. There is an application before the Board of Transport Commissioners now to pull out one of those little lines which run north and south, on the grounds that it is not economic. This rail line is called the Corning subdivision. It was recommended for abandonment by the Hall commission report and it was turned down by the other study which followed, but it did not consider the subdivision as part of this north-south concept I have just outlined.
Both the Hall commission people and the later study failed in their responsibilities to bring into the over-all global picture what we are trying to do. This matter was put before the so-called Neil study under the authority of the then minister of transport, who gave the solemn promise that if any grain company would say they would keep their elevators in place on these lines which were up for abandonment, then the government would guarantee they would be put on to the permanent lines of the railway system until the year 2000.
Several railway lines were given this status by orders in council as a result of this policy by the former minister of transport. Two of these lines were late in getting their information in, and the then minister of transport promised that he would pass on the recommendation in writing to the new minister of transport, which he did. He asked the new minister to honour his commitment to these producers, in view of the fact that the government was changing. The present minister has not seen fit to honour that commitment to the Corning line. In view of what I think is a reasonable and fair view of the picture, I would ask him if he would not consider answering the letter of the previous minister of transport and say he will honour all the commitments made under the policy announcement. This should be done for two reasons: one, for the sake of being honourable and not taking advantage of a minister who made a commitment, who did not want to act on it because the government was changing and, two, since it is part of a long-range strategy of making the railway, which I think the minister supports-


Denis Éthier: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The minister will not have time to answer.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon to this committee on the estimates of the Department of Transport. I think the debate which has already taken place indicated the tremendously wide scope the Minister of Transport has to cover when we consider all the modes of transportation-water, rail, road, and air. In connection with that wide scope I think we ought to congratulate him on at least two Crown corporations which, during the past year or so, have made a profit. They are Air Canada and CN. Notoriously, Crown corporations do not often make profits so when they do I think we should draw attention to it.
I want to mention also a program that people might not associate with the Minister of Transport. In my constituency we have the north channel cruising and sailing area of Lake Huron. During the past couple of years the Minister of Transport established a program for water safety called the inshore rescue program. A couple of years previous to that the department established a coastguard auxiliary program in which individuals can work in units in co-operation with the coastguard in promoting water safety and search and rescue programs. Certainly in this area where we are very dependent on tourism, in particular boating, these two programs have been most useful and I congratulate the minister on establish-
December 4, 1980

ing them. I hope he will continue them and expand them in the future.
There is hardly another department of the government which can carry out this vital work which is so important in our area. As well, the boater safety programs are equally important in preventing accidents. For instance, the inshore rescue program has two stations, one located in Batchawana on Lake Superior and one in Blind River on Lake Huron, in which young students carried out important search and rescue programs and boater safety programs during this past summer.
I would also like to raise a number of concerns that have surfaced in my constituency relating to airports and air safety. This past summer the Department of Transport carried out an important paving program on the apron of the Manitoulin Island airport, which serves the entire Manitoulin Island and district. However, this was carried out late in the season and some problems have been identified with the paving program. If the program which was carried out this past year is to be fully beneficial to that airport I think it is important that the paving of the main runway be carried out during 1981-82 so that the full benefits of this improvement will be realized. We are hoping that those airport facilities, which particularly serve the tourist industry of Manitoulin, will be increased, because the customs service has agreed to expand their program in the coming year, which will provide customs service right from the airport and, as well, will hopefully provide the direct phone-in service. The phone-in customs service has been operating in the Sault Ste. Marie area for the past year, and will be especially beneficial to Manitoulin airport if established there. I am hoping those two improvements will take place in 1981. That would move up the date for the paving of the main runway, which is scheduled for 1982, from 1982 to 1981. This would enable the necessary remedial work to be done to the apron improvements which were carried out this past summer.
I also want to mention the Sault Ste. Marie airport, which is also located in the Algoma constituency. I mention it because during the next couple of years there will have to be important improvements carried out there as well. The services have outgrown the size of that airport. We have several carriers in there now, including Nordair, whose facilities will be expanded next spring. This will result in the manager of the airport being removed right out of the airport into an auxiliary building. Air Canada has two or three auxiliary buildings as well, which points to the need to expand the facilities of that airport terminal building. In the next couple of years, not only for additional carriers, but to improve the baggage area which is very poorly set up at present. The restaurant facilities, too, are totally inadequate and in need of improvement.
I also want to mention the third airport which is located in the Algoma constituency. It is located at Elliot Lake. The town of Elliot Lake is growing rapidly from some 15,000 people to what is projected to be close to 25,000 by the middle of this decade. This is due to the expansion of the uranium mines in that community. Along with this increase in population has come an increase in the use of the airport.
Supply
The federal government spent some $300,000 in 1979 to expand the runway from 2,500 feet to 3,500 feet. Included in the $300,000 figure was the provision of lighting to the runway. The air boardings and the use of the airport have expanded dramatically since 1976 when there was something in the range of two boardings a month as compared with over 1,000 boardings a month between the two commercial carriers which operate there now. Last month there were over 120 charter flights operating out of that airport. We actually have four communities feeding services into the Elliot Lake airport: Chapleau, Sault Ste. Marie, and Sudbury to Toronto, with nine scheduled flights a day.
Plans are going forward in the next fiscal year to improve the taxi way, the lighting on the taxi way and the car park at the airport. Other needs will become apparent with the expansion of the use of the airport during the next three or four years. Certainly in the next couple of years the small metal building which serves as the terminal will require expanding as the town grows. 1 know that proposals will be coming forward from the Elliot Lake airport committee and the town council for the expansion of that facility. The expansion is necessary because of the growth of the community and in the general area, the growth of air traffic, the development of the Eldorado uranium refinery at Blind River, and the general expansion in the uranium mining industry.
Another problem which the town has faced for the past two or three years is with regard to the atmospheric environmental service at the airport which is currently being provided under an arrangement with Norontair, the principal air carrier in the area. However, the way in which this arrangement works out means that a small town of 15,000 people ends up subsidizing by $75,000 a year the atmospheric environmental service which is normally provided at airports by the federal government through the Department of the Environment. Surely, as the traffic grows this airport will grow, and the responsibility for this service should be assumed by the federal government rather than maintained by a community of this size. It is interesting that this weather information is fed into the national weather service. Obviously the responsibility ultimately lies with the federal government.
More urgently, I want to raise the matters of navigational aids, air traffic control, and radio communication at the Elliot Lake airport with the Minister of Transport. There is a large amount of air traffic at this airport every day, which has nine commercial scheduled flights. At the present time MOT plans are going forward to instal a new non-directional beacon by the summer of 1981 and I understand that negotiations are taking place to have this beacon located at an appropriate spot west of the airport. I also understand that there are plans going forward to move the peripheral UHF radio station from Blind River, some 15 miles or 20 miles away, to the airport to help air traffic control cover this airport.
I am told that we have quite a dangerous situation at the present time because we do not have air traffic control.

December 4, 1980
Supply
Considering the number of flights and considering the bad weather during the winter months, a great deal of concern is being expressed by the airport committee, pilots and the commercial air carriers, that because there is not proper air traffic control, action should be taken immediately. I hope that the minister will see that action is taken to provide air traffic control, better navigational aids and better communications aids, because they are essential to this airport.
1 would like to congratulate the minister on the action which was taken to provide a new air navigational aid at Wawa, which is just west of my constituency. The device was installed this past year at a cost of some $800,000. It will be very useful to that entire area on the north shore of Lake Superior, north of Sault Ste. Marie. I understand that this is the first air navigational aid of its type to have been installed outside the Rocky Mountain area of western Canada. Certainly it is important to air safety in that area on the north shore of Lake Superior.
1 would like to leave some time for the minister to respond to the several questions which I have raised about airport facilities and air safety in the Algoma constituency, namely, an earlier start to the improvements at Manitoulin-Gore Bay, the terminal facilities in the Sault Ste. Marie, and an increase in the number of navigational aids and the safety facilities at the Elliot Lake airport. I think that it is important that the minister respond to these matters.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, 1 will respond to the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma on the needs, both air and marine, in his constituency. At the same time 1 would like to take this opportunity to inform the hon. member on what the life of the Minister of Transport entails. I can in all honesty say that the sort of representation he has made is reiterated by almost all the 282 members in this House, including the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, who occasionally decides that his riding also has an airport.
My department pays attention to all the matters which are raised, and I am particularly sensitive to those representations. I wake up in the morning thinking about such matters, or go to sleep at night dreaming about radar, ELTs, runways, aprons, parking concessions, and so on and so forth. It has become a major preoccupation.
Mir. Hnatyshyn: Tell us more about your dreams.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Strangely enough, there has been a change in values. On the subject of safety, the hon. member for Algoma made some comments with which I agree. The preoccupation will be great and the department is very much concerned about safety. When one listens to what is said on air safety, one forgets to look at the record in Canada, particularly with respect to regular scheduled carriers. We have been very fortunate because the number of accidents in Canada is extremely low, and in most years it has been zero. I am looking at my air administrator for his blessing as I am speaking, but most years the fatalities have been zero. This would suggest
that there is a lot of good equipment and much attention given to such matters.
I would like to report very rapidly that the first operating station of the joint en route terminal system at Moncton was opened last summer. This is the first of seven such terminals which will be located across Canada. A rather expensive radar modernization program has been developed which will cost, if I remember correctly, $147 million.
I would like to use this opportunity both to agree with the representations of my friend and to say how expensive this equipment is. The department and the minister try to be as fair as possible in distributing the advantages around the country, but the demand is almost unlimited. I welcome the kind of interventions made this afternoon and last night, particularly by the hon. member for Manicouagan who laid it all out on the floor of the House with regard to his frustration, to which I replied in part by saying a few words on the frustration of the minister.
I also welcome what the hon. member for Algoma said about the coastguard auxiliary program. This has been very, very helpful, and it is one of the main objectives of the department to continue that expansion.
I wish I had more time to deal with the matter of search and rescue, but I want to tell members what is happening. There has been an increase in the number of accidents, particularly on the west coast, due to the increase in fisheries, the increase in commercial transport and the increase in the number of recreational boats. This applies to the Great Lakes as well. Accidents have increased. The Department of National Defence has the primary responsibility in this matter but the Department of Transport has the marine responsibility, and it is spending a lot more money on this particular aspect of its responsibilities as years go by.
1 want to thank the member for Algoma and tell him that I will be particularly mindful of Manitoulin, Elliot Lake, and the coastguard auxiliary force.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Chairman, I want to apprise the minister-I am sure if he was here last November when we had that problem in Mississauga-that certain representations were made in the House by the member for Mississauga North, and I think they should be corrected.
The tragedy of Mississauga occurred at 11.50 p.m. on November 11. On November 12 at two o'clock in the afternoon when the House opened, this House unanimously directed the minister of transport to have a full and independent inquiry into the activities that happened in Mississauga. As soon as possible the minister organized a public inquiry under Justice Grange. As the minister knows, it is not easy to get a public inquiry going. You have to get a judge, then counsel, and so on. The then minister moved as expeditiously as was possible.
Secondly, the minister directed the CTC to have a Mr. McGee at the site throughout all of the investigation problems, and throughout all of the period when the evacuation was
December 4, 1980

taking place. If the member for Mississauga North lived in Mississauga, if he had even recognized where Mississauga was on November 11, he would have known that. The member is talking through his hat. He does not know what the minister of transport in the last Parliament did. That minister of transport did everything for the benefit of Mississauga that could conceivably be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct a question to the minister about air transport. The minister will know that in Mississauga we have probably one of the most profitable airports in Canada, and certainly one of the most busy airports in Canada. The minister will also know that study after study has been made of this airport. I refer him to the last study, the Southern Ontario Modal Passenger study, completed in September, 1979. That study recommended all sorts of things be done. If the minister would direct his attention to Malton, 1 would like to know what the minister has done with respect to a terminal that was supposed to be built within 12 months from the date of that study. Fourteen months have passed and nothing has happened.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the ferocity of the tone. I am flabbergasted, as a matter of fact. I am not used to it. But the short answer was already given to a member from the Toronto area some days ago in the House when I said that the terminal is the subject of a study at the present time. Unless my air administrator contradicts me as I am speaking, the decision on the terminal is expected to be made early in the year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Tell us when construction will commence.


Jean-Luc Pepin: First of all, the matter has to come before cabinet and Treasury Board. After that we start planning with architectural designs and that sort of thing. I would think that it will be anywhere between two or three years before the actual construction will take place. Another subject which is being explored now is the financing. A number of people have suggested that in view of the limited financial capacity of governments these days, and in view of the tremendous need across the country for facilities of this kind, we should consider other forms of financing for airports.
As my friend already knows, my department has been through a study exercise on airport management. Unfortunately, its recommendations have not met with unanimous support in all parts of the country, so we are trying to adjust it in order to make it more acceptable to a greater number of people. Thus, there is all this talk under way about both the third terminal at Malton and the financing of it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I must say that three or four or five years is not acceptable. There is terminal crowding now that is seriously interfering with service in Toronto. The terminal could be financed without any expenditure of public funds. Indeed, the terminal would make a profit from day "go", and the minister knows that. There seems to be no reason whatever for the
Supply
holdup and delay in getting on with this needed terminal building. I would like to have a better commitment than three, four or five years, and study after study, from the minister on this matter. It is about time that the minister took his responsibility for this problem seriously.
This airport presently takes in airplanes like the Cessna 172, and it even rents out space to people in which to park their Cessna 172s. Can the minister tell me what it costs to tie down a Cessna 172 at Toronto international airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am very familiar with the increase in the recent landing fees. I have good reasons-something like 67 good reasons-judging from the number of letters I received from members of this House. I answered in kind, in the sense that I sent an explanatory note to my hon. friends to explain what had been happening. I am familiar with the increase in landing fee from $1.65 to $5. I explained that and a great number of other things to hon. members, in my letter. The first thing is that this is not vengeance. This is not an attack on general aviation. This is simply an effort to make sure that people using these facilities at the four major airports, namely, Mirabel, Dorval, Malton and Vancouver, make a just and fair contribution to the cost of operating these airports. I have inquired about the price elsewhere in the world and I am told that in Boston and New York it is closer to $50 than it is to $5. Unless my memory does not serve me well, it is more expensive in other airports in Canada also.
Another argument which I have used is the fact that people who are using these airports-and that applies to the four already mentioned, and to the others-should be mindful also that the department does have to recover some of the investments it makes. Why does it have to do it? Because there are other locations in Canada, other groups of people, who would like to have small airports or big airports, and don't. It is a question of fairness.
On the subject of the timing for the construction of the third terminal in Malton, if I was slightly reluctant to indicate a date-and by the way, my hon. friend transformed the two to three years, which I used, to three to four years. Suddenly there was a year added to my timetable. If the terminal were built by private enterprise it could be built more rapidly than if built by government. So I go along with the argument he is trying to make. I suggest to him that we are investigating that possibility now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister about tie-downs. A tie-down is a place where a person can rent a space at the airport to tie down their airplane so that it will not blow away. Does the minister know you can, in fact, rent a tie-down for a Cessna 172 cheaper at Malton than at the Brampton Flying Club?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, that proves how difficult it is to assess what people actually pay for the services they get. People who own aircraft have to pay a number of fees. For example, there are fees on fuel, and there is this one on

December 4, 1980
Supply
tie-downs. There are landing fees, and so on. Presumably there is the cost of alcohol at the bar, too. However, this should be seen as a general proposition. In the letter which I sent to members I explained the very substantial rise in the cost of landing fees at Malton and three other airports. 1 indicated fees have not been increased in other areas of the airport.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was not really concerned about the landing fee charges. It is my feeling that a major airport should not be used when there are problems with respect to runway capacity, as there is in Toronto. In my opinion, people should not be allowed to fly in and out of a major airport in private single engine aircraft which are unable to land at speeds comparable to jet aircraft. Toronto international airport is probably our busiest airport in Canada. It certainly has most of our commercial traffic. By allowing planes which have to land at less than 70 knots per hour, this delays all sorts of jet traffic.
When is the minister going to treat Toronto international airport as an international airport? When is the minister going to supply general aviation with other facilities away from the jet-age traffic so that general aviation can have a place from which it can operate with proper IFR facilities? If he handles it that way, he could leave the capacity at Toronto for regular commercial flights and regular business activity using jet aircraft which can land at speeds appropriate to the jet age.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that the argument which my friend is using is one which I refrain from using. This argument is qualified as unfair by a number of people. It is all right to say that you should use Cartierville if you are in Montreal instead of Dorval, or St. Hubert; to say you should use Buttonville or Maple if you are in Toronto. I was told this is not a very good argument. It is possible that a person who has a plane may not be in a position to use those satellite airports. I did not want to make that as a part of my argument, but if my hon. friend wants to, he can suit himself.
I think it makes some sense in these big international airports used by the larger aircraft, and although I am not an air traffic controller it would appear to me that getting in all the pipsqueaks at the same time must delay the operations of the big planes. I was told not to use that argument because it would not wash well, both intellectually and psychologically.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that you cannot use the argument of small aircraft being permitted to land at Toronto international as an excuse to go through a big process of building an airport at Pickering. Would the minister give us a commitment to supply the satellite airports with the IFR facilities so those airports can be used to their fullest extent? The problem is that you cannot fly into Toronto Island airport in all weathers. That is why a person cannot leave his aircraft there. That is why business cannot use that airport to its fullest extent. You cannot use the Maple, the Brampton Flying Club airport or the Oshawa airport the way one would like, simply because the air control facilities are not there. The traffic protection facilities for IFR flying are not there. Will the minister do something to make it possible for people in
general aviation to have an airport to go to so they do not have to take their lives in their hands and compete with the jumbo jets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, that just proves demand is great. I was going to use the word "unlimited," but that may be an exaggeration. My predecessor used the formula at Vancouver when he offered Boundary Bay airport to private investment. That is an idea.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is a good idea.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The idea has been explored. Yes, I said that even in the absence of the hon. member for Vegreville. Even when he is not in the House, I say kind things about him.
My air administrator says that consideration is being given to limit the use of Malton by small aircraft on the basis of pilot licences and weight of plane. This makes sense, and we have just agreed on that. As a counterpart to that, maybe we can try to pay particular attention to the improvement of facilities at the satellites so we can have a compensating balancing factor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, the minister will recall that I asked him in the House about the estimated cost of putting navigational aids into the Toronto Island airport. I suggested to him that it would be about $5 million. Will the minister confirm his investigations with respect to what he has done about my question on the Toronto Island airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I have these figures somewhere. Apparently $5 million is correct. However, if I recall, there are two amounts of $5 million; one is for the airport itself and one is for the facilities leading to the airport. If the two are put together, it makes sense. If the Toronto community and the relevant authorities-metropolitan, the city and the government of Ontario-are interested enough to put the STOL project into operation at Toronto Island, then there might be a division of labour and expenditures between the federal government and the other interests and orders of government.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate there is a $5 million charge to put a bridge or a tunnel into the airport, but it is not necessary to build a bridge or a tunnel because there is a ferry service available. It is my understanding from the minister's figures that $5 million spent on navigational aids would indicate a repayment of the $5 million in about four years with any STOL service. Will the minister confirm that is the case? Will he confirm that if he spent the money on navigational aids there is enough business ready to go there, particularly if he gives the licence to people who want to run the STOL service, and he will get the money back in four years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I tiptoe into this debate because there are so many ifs in the air. The first if, as the hon. member for Mississauga indicates, is the participation of whoever is going to get the licence from the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not know who it is. One of the
December 4, 1980

difficulties of the decision is by not choosing, because of the uncertainties, the Transport Commission made it more difficult for me to bring this matter to a conclusion.
Had a candidate been selected by the CTC, we could have talked to that person to find out to what extent financially he could get involved in the costs of developing the facilities which my hon. friend has mentioned. That has created difficulties. It is now an "apres vous Alphonse, apres vous Ernest" situation. I now have to do the work. That will start in the coming days. I will find out what other orders of government are willing to do to get this project on the road. I make puns voluntarily. I will then find out to what extent the successful applicant could be involved in this. We will get through it.


The Chairman:: This is the last question for the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The minister will know the government has spent a great deal of money supporting STOL technology in de Havilland. There were at least three applicants who want to use the airport facility at Toronto Island.


An hon. Member:: Five.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Five. I suspect the minister will know that every member representing Toronto from his side of the House is probably in favour of it, and I suspect that almost every member from the Toronto area on this side is in favour, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Beaches. The new mayor of Toronto is in favour, as is the chairman of metropolitan Toronto and the Toronto Board of Trade.
Will the minister now tell me why he has to talk to more people about that possible airport, which could conceivably pay for this service in four years, before he interferes, and does something to make STOL technology available to Torontonians and others in the Toronto area?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member's time has expired. Possibly the minister can reply briefly.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Just a couple of sentences, Mr. Chairman. I am perfectly aware of the distribution of intelligence or lack of it in this House and elsewhere. With the possibility of one or two, I know who is for and who is against. If I am doing it this way, it is because the steering group had been created for that purpose by my predecessor once removed. I believe my immediate predecessor had the same intention. Therefore, there seems to be some wisdom around the decision to develop a consensus among the different parties. We will talk money at the same time. That is why I am doing it in this fashion. If I were not doing it that way, the hon. member would say 1 am being despotic and Napoleonic, or something of that nature.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak during these estimates debates. I want to mention first that I feel the Department of Transport is probably one of the most difficult departments of the federal government over
Supply
which to gain administrative control. It is my feeling that the present minister has done an excellent job from the point of view of Atlantic Canada. He has had to cope with matters which have been very difficult to oversee.
In recent years Crown corporations have been turned over to their own control so that at the present time the federal government does not exert much jurisdiction over them. One such corporation which is gaining strength, power and authority, and which ought to be very mindful of the needs of Canadians, is Canadian National. CN has a great influence on the lives of Atlantic Canadians.
VIA Rail has recently become a separate company. Although it is no longer a part of the CN system, it is no less important. The maintaining of passenger rail service in the maritime provinces is of the utmost importance. I was glad to see that VIA has put new coaches on the Nova Scotia runs and has made its rail cars considerably more attractive.
In recent years, probably within the last 12, there has been a very disturbing problem in my constituency. That is the erosion of CN Marine, which provides ferry service from North Sydney to Newfoundland. That service is guaranteed under the terms of union with Newfoundland.
This very important service has deteriorated to the extent that approximately five years ago it employed about 1,000 men on the wharves and today employs less than 500. Of these 500, a great many are not working full time and are merely on call. This has been a source of concern to the communities of North Sydney and Sydney Mines, and to me personally as the member of Parliament for that area.
This deterioration continued through the years. This year, with the help of the minister, we were able to obtain a study on the problems of CN Marine. I want to thank the minister very much for interceding in this very desperate situation. The study has not yet been completed. We are hopeful it will point out where the problems have been in this industry and with this community. Once we know the source of the trouble, I am hopeful that steps will be taken to rectify a good part of the difficulty. With this report the minister has provided to the people of North Sydney the feeling that the Department of Transport is not only interested in the future of this very valuable asset, but in the well-being of that community.
The most current and pressing difficulty regarding the CN system is CN Express. I do not need to tell of the difficulty the closure of CN express terminals in Atlantic Canada is creating, particularly in my constituency. The CN Express terminal in the city of Sydney will be closing completely. This will mean a loss of 52 jobs. The economy there, without the closure of CN Express, is very, very shaky. Therefore, this is a very bad time for the economy of that area. The economy will improve with the coming of the mining industry and steel industry, but at this critical juncture the loss of jobs and services will be very damaging.
In the last month, three businesses on the main street of Sydney ceased operation, and rumours are that other businesses will be following suit. These are difficulties that busi-

December 4, 1980
Supply
nesses are facing before Christmas. Imagine what it will be like after Christmas. The difficulties facing these businesses, particularly the merchants, with the closure of CN Express will be absolutely devastating. I ask the consideration of the Department of Transport in that regard.
The additional cost of unloading parcels at Stellarton, the closest terminal, but many miles away, and loading them on to another truck owned by another company will drastically increase the cost of shipping from other points to Cape Breton Island. The economy of Sydney cannot absorb that additional burden.
In view of the hardships facing the merchants of Sydney, is the minister prepared to assist the community in overcoming this very bleak scenario?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys puts me in a very difficult situation. The difficulty is really the behaviour of the minister with Crown corporations. It is not a new problem. Every minister who has been around has experienced this. In the case of CN, it is a schedule D corporation and has a great amount of freedom. That is the way the system works. When Crown companies have less freedom and independence, they are put in different category from that one. The minister must be aware of that. My predecessors have taken the same position as I, that is, we do not tell them what to do. We discuss with them, we try to bring forward other points of views manifested by members of Parliament, bring factors to their attention, and so on.


An hon. Member:: What about the president's salary?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, even at that, the present salary he receives is probably half of what he would get elsewhere. That applies to us too, but we have special dedication.
In this particular case, I have agreed with the purpose of CN Express and have said so on the floor of the House, because CN Express indicated that they could not do a good job of competing in small parcel express. They tried it and, because of the nature of the beast, they cannot. There are various truckers and others who are more keen and capable of doing it. It is a confession on the part of CN Express that for small parcels they are not able to compete with other companies which are lighter, specialize in certain areas, and do a better job.
Another reason why I cannot agree is the behaviour of CN Express with workers in terms of pre-retirement, relocation, pre-pensioning and retraining. Another reason was the attitude they are taking with respect to communities, in that they will not leave the responsibility to fly-by-night operators but try to accommodate the communities by way of developing subcontracts, interlining and so on. So, they were mindful of their responsibility.
What we are witnessing now is that CN Express is trying to accommodate, in a civilized fashion, the interest of the communities. What we are hearing now is that there might be some accommodations for Charlottetown, Prince Edward
Island, and Cape Breton-The Sydneys, in particular. Maybe they can develop another modus operandi so that there would be only one centre, Moncton, but there would be trailer facilities going from Moncton to those other areas which would reduce the number of employees who would be laid off. Again, I do not want to tell CN Express how to do it. They are, very conscientious people and I told them to do the best job they could in the light of the philosophy that they expounded when they told me that they intended to retrench the small parcel business. I hope the end result is acceptable to the greatest number of people.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I am sure the minister appreciates the seriousness of the situation. As I mentioned to him, it is not only a question of jobs in this particular case but the actual survival of a downtown area, an area which is, at this particular time, undergoing considerable hardship.
I think probably very kindly, CN Express is providing pre-retirement pensions and has offered to give displaced employees job opportunities in other branches of CN. In many areas this might be satisfactory. Unfortunately, in an area in which all arms of CN recently laid off employees who are now on call and on standby, to take men from CN Express and to give them the first opportunity for employment in another branch of CN is merely postponing the opportunity for people in that other branch of CN once again to obtain gainful employment. In the context of the high level of unemployment in industrial Cape Breton, I think what should be considered very carefully when Dr. Bandeen, CN and CN Express look at this question, as I think they must, is what the final situation for the CN Express facility in industrial Cape Breton is going to be.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has made his case very eloquently. It used to be said of CN that it is both a business and a responsibility. That is the balancing act it has to do regularly.
CN is a business, and it is not there to lose money. I heard an hon. member say this morning that this was the first time he could report that Crown corporations were making money. But if every time they make money-and in business circles this is one of the indications that you are doing a good job-we say they have to lose that money, we take it away, what then? It is this balancing of responsibility between business enterprise, efficiency and so forth that those schedule D corporations must achieve. They must reconcile themselves between being in business and exercising responsibilities, and there is no formula in the textbooks of this House or in the government which will give us a good definition once and for all. In every instance that balancing takes place, and hopefully it will be done well again this time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the minister's replies to the various questions put to him today. I
December 4, 1980

also had the opportunity to read part of yesterday's Hansard. I recognize that the minister shows much sympathy for the problems raised by his various colleagues in the House. He will admit that it is not enough to sympathize with the frustrations of some members-the minister has stated that he was frustrated himself in several cases, even the officials are frustrated-but those are not the answers expected by the Canadian people and by hon. members.
The minister has referred, of course, to the appropriations, which are always restricted. I shall try to ask a few quick questions in the hope of obtaining brief and concrete answers. Since 1 have a few questions to ask and my time is limited, 1 will deal first with a matter which does not require additional estimates.
I had the opportunity to inquire in the House on two or three occasions about the future of Nordair. Yesterday, the member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) felt that he was justifiably concerned considering the interest shown by some Quebec groups, considering the circumstances since the matter has been discussed, and since the government is committed to resell that corporation to private interests. Could the minister tell us quickly how the matter stands and whether the sale will be completed before January 1?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member can settle the matter, why did he not do so when his party was in power? Obviously, I would have been the first one to be relieved. If he did not act himself with his colleague the minister of transport at the time, it is because the problem is particularly difficult. Some people refuse to accept that, but I feel that in this case especially they are not showing much sense of responsibility. The matter is extremely complex and has become symbolic in a way. But once again, I tell myself that it is not of my own doing.
Compromises should be made by the shareholders in the matter of the balance between shareholders within what is known as Regionair, a holding company grouping various persons and companies. They should come to terms among themselves; the Quebec side and the Ontario side of the group should come to an agreement. Now, if the hon. member insist that I should take care of the Quebec group only, which I doubt he will do because it would be a disservice to the cause, I would remind him that though Nordair has its head office in Montreal, it does in fact operate in Ontario. So it is quite proper for the Quebec government to be interested in the case, just as it is for the Ontario government to be concerned with it too. What is good for one is good for the other. All those aspects have to be taken into account and it is with that rather tricky balancing act that we are now busying ourselves. 1 met once again the Regionair group a few days ago and I shall surely do so again in the next few days. We are trying to find a balance in the matter. It is not just a matter of the shareholders coming to terms, but also that of accommodating the people who work for the companies and the people who
Supply
manage them. They are entitled to some attention too. In many cases, they are responsible for the success of the company. Their interests deserve some consideration.
A third group must also be accommodated: the unions. They have a say in this as well and they have a right to be concerned about the outcome. I feel it is our duty to respond to that too. In addition, we have to think of the future of the company, future investments and the services it will offer its passengers, and so on. So I think this is a very serious matter. Some of my friends have told me that I agonized too much over it, but I would rather be accused of agonizing too much than too little. So, that is why it has taken so much time and is still taking time, but I do think the problem will be solved one of these days.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, the minister tells me that this is a serious matter. Of course, it is a serious matter. We considered that matter. We did a lot of work on that case. A responsible minister pursued that study, Mr. Chairman; however, I think there are limits to the decisions a government must make, and I asked the minister whether he was in a position to tell me at what date he was going to make a final decision. If we consider that the study by both governments is a two-year study, in any case the minister responsible has almost ten months. I think that the people of Quebec, Canada and Ontario are interested in that matter, and I am aware of it. Following the representations which have been made to him by his colleagues, can the minister at least say whether we will have to wait ten months, two months or three weeks longer? Mr. Chairman, this is the question I ask the minister today.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that I am favourably disposed towards him. But if he wants to contribute to that debate, why does he not tell us this afternoon how he would have solved the problem? I shall listen with the greatest interest.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to put questions to the minister responsible, and the fact the minister is asking me questions astounds me as well as the Canadian people. It is his responsibility to provide answers, it is his responsibility to make decisions. He has not decided anything in ten months. I do not care at all if he accuses me of failing to make decisions in a seven-month period. We made progress regarding that matter, and the minister has just proven something once more today, and he has disappointed the hon. member for Laprairie and others who take an interest in that matter and are concerned about certain formulas. 1 am simply asking the minister. Of course it interests Quebeckers, Mr. Chairman, and it interests them enormously. They are also interested in the principle of a certain majority of shares in Quebec interests, without disregarding the interests of Ontario for all that. There is lobbying around, we are aware of it. I ask once more of the minister: How long are we going to wait for an answer to that question?

December 4, 1980
Supply


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot say. And in this matter as in many others, I discharge my responsibilities. If some of my friends feel that I am not going fast enough in this matter, it is their privilege to criticize me. The hon. member is exercising his privilege now. 1 have consistently stated that matters have to settle in the Nordair case, and this is now taking place. Some may feel that the process is too slow, that I am not, should I say, bold enough, gambler enough, that I should decide and things would settle down once a decision had been taken. Be that as it may, everyone plays that game with his own gut feelings, and mine would be rather cautious in that kind of thing, especially in a case like this when there is a symbolic significance. We must be especially cautious when a case like this takes on a symbolic significance, which this one has had right from the beginning, and do not blame me for that.
So I tried to be nice this afternoon as I told the hon. member he was missing a golden opportunity to indicate how he would have solved the problem. Because when I took over this department, all the problems were not solved. Yesterday, my friend from Vegreville seemed to be saying that the only problems to have been solved were those he had solved himself. But such was not the case; many problems had not been solved when he took over the department, and 1 inherited many from him. This is normal. It is a classic situation.
As I was saying to the hon. member for Joliette, he missed a good opportunity to contribute to the solution of the problem if he so wished, but he did not. He asked me a question and I replied by pointing out how difficult it was to solve the problem. He is now asking me to tell him what is my deadline, but I cannot do so because the negotiations are still going on. However, I am giving this matter all the attention it deserves.


Roch La Salle: I can assure the minister that we respect the principle of giving priority to the interests of Quebec without, however, neglecting Ontario.
What I can tell the minister if he will not or cannot reply today, is that what concerns the hon. member for Laprairie and many others is the priority given to Quebec's interests. I want the minister to know this.
Another matter of great interest to Quebec is the confidential report submitted last September 29 to the federal Minister of Public Works, and since it concerns the famous Mirabel project, the Minister of Transport is certainly involved to a large extent. Has the minister seen this document, as I imagine he has, and would he care to comment on what I would call the nearly disastrous situation outlined to the Department of Public Works concerning Mirabel? Nearly all those who live or work there are shocked to see that the initial plan has yet to be carried out. There is much concern because of the amounts that would still be needed to improve all aspects of this project which was supposed to bring about great economic and social benefits and which has fallen far short of its goals. Could the minister comment briefly on this report if he has read it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. colleague is referring to my department's report, I have indeed read it. I do not know whether there is another report. There may have been another on the peripheral zone, on Mirabel's cattle exporting potential. I do not know exactly what he is talking about, but my department has indeed produced a report, to which I have referred in the House, which deals with the situation at Mirabel, the reasons behind the problems.
There are reasons, the main one being Montreal. For reasons which would be too long for me to explain today- because I do not want to take up the hon. member's time- Montreal has simply not been as booming as one could have expected when the building of Mirabel was being considered. That often happens. Forecasters are wrong sometimes one way or another. For example, in Calgary, the department of the day was accused of lacking vision, and volume has increased twice as fast as forecast. What I mean essentially is that economic conditions explain the situation. There are some purely technological conditions, if you want. Aircraft are getting bigger and bigger and cover ever greater distances.
I saw a few days ago that Iberia, which used to route all its flights to Mexico via Montreal, has now routed part of its flights directly from Madrid to Mexico without going through Montreal. This is another one of the factors which have caused the expectations concerning Mirabel to fall through. Several departments are involved in this issue. The Minister of Public Works has a responsibility as concerns the peripheral lands, the Department of Agriculture has some responsibilities concerning the use of the airport for cattle exports, and there is a committee which regroups all of this.
I should perhaps say a few words about the Department of Transport report which I mentioned earlier. I said that the department is studying the factors which have brought about the present situation and that it then makes certain hypotheses. There are now seven scenarios, from moving only a few elements to moving the whole facilities, and each of these scenarios is then analysed on the basis of seven factors, such as passengers, cargo, carriers, and so on. This report should be made public in the next few weeks. The reason I have waited is that three aspects which I consider extremely important are not covered in this report. These are the costs for the passengers, the costs for the carriers and the costs for the governments. I thought that a study which did not cover these three elements left a lot to be desired. This will make up the second phase of this study, and this is what my department is now working on.
December 4, 1980


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, following a speech made by the Secretary of State, a newspaper reported that after a commitment on the part of the Liberal caucus during the election campaign concerning the second phase of the project, the Secretary of State himself had abandoned this project, and 1 would like to know if he was stating the position of the minister and the government and whether it is true that the second phase, which included, I believe, an airport and a runway, will be definitely postponed as the newspapers have reported?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not true at all. Perhaps what was meant was-well I do not know what was meant, but the investigation is going on. The cost analysis concerning the three components that I mentioned earlier is going on. What we have done is to eliminate some of the possible scenarios that I mentioned earlier. We have kept only the first, which was the status quo, the sixth, which concerns the transfer of everything except the shorter routes, and the seventh which is a complete transfer. This has narrowed the analysis to be made and the study is now much more limited. It is within this more restricted context that we shall now know what the costs would be.
For my part, 1 do not know whether my colleagues think that I am too careful. Perhaps I am, but I have always been this way. I have not changed. However, I believe it is very important to make cost analyses, before making such vital decisions, because even though many people were willing three years ago to move everything from Dorval to Mirabel, many others are not. Many people would like Dorval to develop as it has been since the second year of the project. Before undertaking any move, the government wants to ensure that there will be some industrial development in the Dorval area to replace the people who will work elsewhere. This is what is going on and it takes a certain time; becoming impatient will not solve anything. I want to accommodate as many people as possible, but in such a matter, I believe that the public will agree that it is better to look twice before leaping.
The whole situation is undergoing a maturing process, a certain evolution. Of course, after what happened in the last few years at Dorval, if the plan continues, if new facilities are provided, the next few years will see new growth, new balance and, in the final analysis, people will not be perturbed to any great extent. At least, that is what I hope.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, the minister is surely aware of some of the comments of the hon. member for the area who, for instance, is concerned about the delays, that long overdue development, the projects that could be integrated at Dorval, at Mirabel; he even wonders if the civil servants may not be somehow responsible for those delays. In light of the study on train services between Mirabel and Montreal, the future use of Dorval versus possible progress and changes at Mirabel, is the minister in a position, for instance, to indicate whether or not
Supply
he intends to conduct public hearings at which all interested parties, in Montreal, and Mirabel, as well as probably all hon. members who are interested in the Mirabel project, can be heard, through his own committee or a special committee that could be instructed to look into the matter and see what changes are indicated? There is doubt about it: the viability of Mirabel is important to the government and, as a consequence, to the voters, the citizens. Can the minister tell us whether he would consider an open study of the matter to allow all those whom the project interests to comment on it and participate in it?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The time of the hon. member has now expired. If the minister wants to reply very briefly, he may do so.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the study is in progress. It is the type of question that could lend itself to open discussion once the study has been completed. With regard to the use of Mirabel, I would like to refer to the recent change that happened when First Air received the mandate to cover Ottawa-Mirabel, while Air Canada had only one daily service. First Air will have three round trips. This is the kind of optimal utilization the ministry is striving for in the case of Mirabel to improve utilization, to encourage people in Ottawa to use Mirabel when travelling abroad, to the Caribbean or elsewhere, so they will go there rather than elsewhere.


Mr. Roy:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport. The minister stated he wanted to add additional information to the matters raised by the hon. member for Joliette. I will give him later an opportunity to do so, because 1 also have certain questions for him.
I am amazed to see how eager the hon. member for Joliette was to get answers he already knows. It will be remembered that when he was minister for the northern region, wherein Mirabel lies, his remarks or press conferences earned him nothing more than a reputation as a minister for patronage, because he stated he was ensuring that people doing the census came from the Tory organization. Certainly everyone must remember that speech by the hon. member for Joliette. He looked more anxious to ensure that the people doing the federal 1981 census would be members of the Tory organization.
On his second contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker, the member for Joliette is suggesting another public study, but as far as I am concerned it seems to me that we have had enough of them, and when the minister says that he is very careful, I can only agree with him about that.
However, I am quite conscious of the complex nature of the responsibilities of our Minister of Transport. He is responsible for maritime, air and land transportation in this country. I

December 4, 1980
Supply
have had an opportunity to learn a bit about his activities when I was parliamentary secretary and at that time I had mentioned, like other colleagues, that the present structure of responsibilities within the Department of Transport which covers the field of air, maritime and land transportation, not to mention the Canadian Wheat Board, made it humanly and physically impossible to ask a minister to be responsible before the House for the management of all its activities and I have not changed my mind on this subject.
Mr. Chairman, we are speaking of the Department of Transport, of its activities. Because of its strategic location in the northeastern corner of North America, Montreal has become a natural hub of all modes of transportation: surface, rail, water, and air, both domestically and internationally. As member for Laval, in greater Montreal, I am convinced, having seen them speak in caucus, that all my colleagues agree we must take this opportunity to make the minister and his staff aware of our concerns as members of Parliament for the development of greater Montreal in the transport sector.
There are 80 million people in a 1,000 kilometre range around this city of three million residents. Because of its privileged position in eastern North America, Montreal has become one of the most industrialized and richest cities in America and since the beginning of aviation in this country, it has become the main port of entry to the rest of the country and the main jumping off point for Europe and the rest of the world. Air, marine, rail and road transport operators converge on the city to make it into an international transport centre. With that objective in mind, we Liberal members of that area will continue to call on the minister to ensure the development, as was mentioned earlier, of Mirabel international airport. Situated 1,500 kilometres from the ocean, the Montreal harbour allows large ocean going vessels to get to the heart of the continent; well situated at the head of the St. Lawrence Seaway, it controls all movements from the ocean to the Great Lakes.
World aviation capital, Montreal houses the seat of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Air Transport Association. Situated at the heart of the most travelled rail corridor in the country, Montreal is also where two transcontinental railway systems have their head offices. From all directions, major highways penetrate Montreal's urban fabric whose topography is criss-crossed by all sorts of expressways.
It is, therefore, recognizing Montreal's strategic importance in international transportation, that I rise tonight to speak in this debate. It is obvious that these characteristics were taken into account when the site of Mirabel airport was originally chosen. I do not intend to go over all the points that have been made thus far, but I would like to take this opportunity to find out in what direction Mirabel international airport is headed.
For months, not to say years, the members who are working at the regional level have studied several departmental papers to ensure the development of Mirabel. However, it seems to be almost impossible to know what direction will be taken. I was wondering this evening when the Minister of Transport was answering the member for Joliette and listing the number of
departments involved at Mirabel if he does not think that the present structure was not too cumbersome. The minister said that when a decision concerning the peripheral areas of Mirabel was made the Department of Public Works had its say. When livestock exports are concerned, the Department of Agriculture gets in the act. The Department of Transport, as well as the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, etc. are, of course, involved in the development of Mirabel.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in light of the facts acquired after almost ten years of experience, while the economic context is different, that the planning and development schemes have been altered, but I feel that the structure is too cumbersome and that decisions are not taken because studies are multiplied and consequently Mirabel is endangered.
If the minister is willing to hear me, I would like to make a suggestion. Unlike the member for Joliette I will not refer once again to another public inquiry or anything else. The member of the area, Mr. Chairman, have been considering the problem for many months. Given the complexity of the structure and the fact that the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture all have their say in any decision, I take this opportunity to suggest to the minister that we should lighten the structure, set up a board of directors at the airport who would be responsible to the Minister of Transport and would co-ordinate the activities of Mirabel, Dorval and Saint-Hubert. In addition, the board of directors at the airport would endeavour to develop the area and the trade at the industrial park of Pica. The board of directors would also be asked to organize step by step the implementation of the Mirabel plan. It is a suggestion I am making to the minister. The present organization seems to me to be extremely heavy. Decision-making takes an enormous amount of time and we now find ourselves in a dilemma. When a minister becomes responsible for the administration of the airport, new studies are undertaken and it causes further delay. I make that suggestion. The problems seem to have been identified.
I am thinking about the problem of transferring flights from Dorval to Mirabel, of completing the development of a road transport system, of rapid transit on rail or otherwise. I have made perhaps ten speeches in the House on the importance of developing roads to Mirabel. A very modern airport for passengers as well as cargo has been built, but there is no road system and the province of Quebec under a PQ administration does not have any confidence nor any interest in developing Mirabel. We have been told Mirabel did not rate as a priority. It seems to me it is up to us to ensure the development of a road system to try to improve the situation.
I should like to ask the minister a question about commuter trains. I am addressing the minister, Mr. Chairman. With regard to commuter trains, I asked in October what the policy of the Canadian government would be, while abiding by the fact that urban transportation comes under provincial jurisdiction. We have had the sad experience of the abandonment of
December 4, 1980

road transportation, of CP rail service. The province of Quebec refused to take responsibility for providing service to users. Then the Quebec transport minister wrote to the CP Rail director once again to express pious thoughts, and not only was the service discontinued but after my conversation with CP Rail authorities, it was suggested that the Lakeshore service could also be discontinued in December if the provincial government, that is the government of Quebec, does not fulfil its responsibilities in that area. I should like the minister to tell us about his policy on the improvement of commuter train service.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I must say that to be able to make a comment on the administrative structure, on the structure the hon. member for Laval is suggesting for Mirabel, I should ask him first two questions: Does he suggest the establishment of an executive board or an advisory board? I have to know that. And I have to know what kind of source of financing he has in mind. What will be the financial responsibility of that board?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to answer that question. To me, that board should be administered somewhat like the National Harbours Board; it should be a kind of board of administrators with such powers that decisions would be a little closer, we would have a much closer centre of decision. I made that suggestion because it seems to me that as far as current structures are concerned, given the involvement of three or four departments in the decision-making process, the results we have seen so far fail to indicate that the present structure is the most efficient. There are some Crown corporations- 1 refer to schedule C-whose board of directors reports directly to the minister, and 1 am now thinking of a board like Canadair's, class C. That board has some powers and is directly responsible to the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Laval did not see the study the department made on airport management, that will demonstrate that great minds think alike because that study advocates something along the lines of the hon. member's suggestion. It even indicates how we could conciliate the local board with the management of the Department of Transport since the department must assume some reponsibilities for the security aspects, for example. According to this study, which proves that studies are sometimes very useful, the Department of Transport and that local board could share the responsibility and the authority. I could go on, but I will not. This study also shows how the financing could be shared, how some taxes could be earmarked for these airports and how the airport administration could raise funds to extend the runway, to build a roadway or a parking lot, which goes to prove that great minds think alike.
But the problem is that this study made by the department met with quite a bit of opposition in the country and it is interesting to note that it has a lot to do with psychology and culture. In some areas, people say that these airports-I am talking about Mirabel for instance-are too fraught with responsibility to be entrusted to ordinary people who are not
Supply
qualified to assume these responsibilities. It is therefore very difficult for me to sell this policy by showing to what degree it is applied across Canada.
But to encourage the hon. member I would say that the second part of his speech is also very pertinent because some people suggested at the same time that it might be risky to entrust the local administration with this responsibility, that it might be advisable to establish the equivalent of the harbours board at the national level, with subsidiaries at the local level and this body would be the same across the country. That, I think, is what the hon. member for Laval was saying at the conclusion of his speech.
In any event, we will try that line of action with harbours. Because as I stated yesterday we have a document addressed to my colleagues in which we are trying to establish a structure which would consider the National Harbours Board as a strong super-corporation with mini-administrations in Montreal, Vancouver and elsewhere. We will test that system. We will see if the response of cabinet to this approach is positive and if its application to harbours can be extended to airports. I thank the hon. member for his contribution to our consideration and this area.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Chairman, 1 am delighted to take the first opportunity I have had to participate in a debate of this sort. It gives one an opportunity to get into some of the problems which cannot really be dealt with in question period, for example, and it enables one to bring to the attention of the minister concerns which are better dealt with through an exchange across the floor rather than in correspondence. Correspondence can go on interminably.
It seems to me that one of the suggestions made in the speeches up to this point is that the minister had been expecting that nine months of Conservative government could have solved the problems created in the preceding 11 years. I think those of us who have had a few years in this House can remember the word "mess" being used in connection with the Department of Transport by one of the minister's own predecessors from that side of the House. So it is understandable that there are problems there.
I am wondering if the minister in his visits across the country in his ministerial jet was able to take a few minutes out to visit some of the airport facilities on his route, or whether he is rushed off by the staff through the side gate. I would like to ask the minister if in either the Kamloops or Victoria airports he has ever gone into the airport to examine the facilities.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Certainly not in the aiports the hon. member has mentioned, no.


John Carr Munro: That is unfortunate. 1 wonder, then, if he is aware that, aside from there being a study into the Victoria airport expansion, which has been going on for three or four years now-I hope he is aware of that-there is a problem between management of the airport and Air Canada and PWA with respect to the ticket counter

December 4, 1980
Supply
and baggage-handling facility. Elas the staff ever made the minister aware of this problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is suggesting that the minister get involved in such matters, he is either having some fun with me or he has not reflected on the matter. It is impossible for me to be kept informed on all the discussions with employees at the counters at all the airports in Canada. It is the job of the hon. member to bring such matters to my attention, whereupon I would be delighted to investigate for him. But for the life of me, I cannot visit all the airports and ports, large, medium or small, in the country. I have taken a sampling here and there. I would go nuts and be unable to do the job which is required of me as minister if 1 were to satisfy the apparent demands of the hon. member.


Donald W. Munro: Is the minister aware of the development study with regard to expansion at Victoria international airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am aware that there is a plan for the airport and that it covers such areas as runways, terminals and so on. I am aware that the matter is being debated in the community and of the excellent discussions between my officials and the community. My officials have been praised for their part in the discussions with the community of Vancouver. If that is not the case, then it is the responsibility of the hon. member to tell me so.


Donald W. Munro: I am talking about Victoria international airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought you were talking about Vancouver.


Donald W. Munro: I am talking about the Victoria airport, and I can see it in front of me as I speak. I will concede that perhaps the minister does not have a spare five minutes to view the terminal facilities when he arrives at an airport. We heard yesterday about a dash of some 300 feet from an air terminal to the aircraft. I wonder whether the minister realizes how far that is. Ottawa was a fine example up until two years ago, because we all had to go outside the building to get to the aircraft. 1 think I am correct in saying that Victoria is the only capital in Canada which does not have proper boarding facilities of a regular terminal design. 1 hope the minister will ask his staff to look carefully at the arrangements which are being made for Victoria.
I would like to put on record, so that his officials may look into the matter, the fact that there is a problem at the Victoria airport which could result in a strike, I refer to the handling of baggage from the ticket counter to the baggage-carrying belt. Perhaps it would serve the minister well if he were to take a commercial trip from time to time and go through some of the processes at Victoria international airport, or at Kamloops airport where the same problem exists. While in Kamloops a couple of months ago, I learned that the airport has a converted outhouse just outside the airport terminal which is used to house freight and unclaimed baggage. It is an absolute disgrace, as is the space available for the staff at that airport.
If I heard the minister correctly, he said at one point that $47 million has been made available for modernizing the radar system across Canada. Am I correct?


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are being too modest. It is $147 million.


Donald W. Munro: And it is for modernization? I ask the minister what sort of radar is being used for this modernization. Is it the same type as that used at the Moncton area control centre?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is referring to JETS, the joint enroute terminal system. The first major installation has been established at Moncton, and there will be six more such installations across the country. It is a control system which connects with local systems.
What I was referring to is the radar program which is known as RAMP. I have indicated the price. The equipment is being developed now and we are trying to get the money from the usual source. The system should begin to be implemented by fiscal year 1984-85, and Victoria has a good position in those plans. The reason for the change is that the radar system in Canada is beginning to age. It has an average age of 20 years. It has been kept in excellent condition, which is typical of the Department of Transport; consequently, there is no hazard to safety, but the time has come to modernize the system, and that is what is taking place now.


Donald W. Munro: The minister mentioned the RAMS system. Is that an acronym?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. It stands for the radar modernization system.


Donald W. Munro: It is not a type of radar which involves installing JETS across the country in the six locations and elsewhere? Or is it just where terminal installations are required?


Jean-Luc Pepin: JETS stands for the joint enroute terminal system. RAMP stands for radar modernization program. They are two different programs.


Donald W. Munro: So there is a program presently in progress to instal these JETS, the joint enroute terminal system; there is one installed in Moncton and five more to be installed. Is the minister aware of when these systems were developed, and how modern are they?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to get advice on that topic. Could the hon. member go on with other contributions?


Donald W. Munro: My understanding is that they are obsolete, but I do not know why I should be giving the minister the answer to the question. I think I have just done so.
December 4, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: That was not my intent. I merely wanted to ask my air adviser about the matter. On the general point, the debate among experts as to the quality of a particular piece of equipment is the same as the debate among experts on all other subjects. There are always people, and we read about it every day in the press, who will say that a certain piece of equipment is the greatest invention since sliced bread. Then others will attack that same piece of equipment as if it were of no use at all. There is a similar debate on the quality of the equipment purchased by the department, or by any other department for that matter.


Donald W. Munro: 1 am not talking about the quality of the equipment; I am talking about the obsolescence of the equipment and the technology that is involved. The minister should be aware that the equipment is at least 20 years old. I find it very strange that the department would continue with the installation of obsolete equipment while putting across to the general public the illusion that it is modernizing or bringing up to date the radar system across Canada. Is the minister prepared to comment on that point?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not prepared to give advice on what is the best equipment. The department has a lot of qualified people for that particular purpose, and they have discussions. I take the advice of my officers on these matters. I am not competent to judge, nor do I know anybody in the cabinet who is, what is the best radar available in the market now. I really do not know what the member from Esquimalt-Saanich expects me to say at this particular moment. Does he want to say that I have personal views on this matter? I have none. I take the advice the air transportation administrator gives me when he says that this is the most modern piece of equipment available. We could have a debate on the importance of rail compared to buses, or buses compared to airlines, or big jets compared to STOL aircraft, and so on and so forth.


Donald W. Munro: I think we were talking about radar. I wonder whether the minister could tell us to which corporation the contract was given to develop this system for installation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has not been given. I have also received correspondence from Raytheon to the effect that they should be given the contract without competition, but this is not the view of the department, and this is being attended to now.


Donald W. Munro: Perhaps the minister could tell us whether CAE Electronics is in this operation in any form.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, that sort of proves the point I was making, that another company feels it should be given this contract, I understand, almost automatically. Others would like to participate in it too and, of course, this is what is happening now. It will be an open tender.


Donald W. Munro: Will it be given to those who have expertise in the development of radar equipment, or
Supply
will it be given to those who have been developing simulator equipment for training pilots? I wonder whether the minister is aware of that part of it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If I were aware of all these questions I would be senior air adviser. I am sorry, but my hon. friend is old enough, he is experienced, he is a former diplomat, he is a great intellectual, he is a great thinker, and so on and so forth, and he knows very well that there is no minister on earth who can explore and find out all about the different pieces of radar equipment. The answer is that there is an interdepartmental committee involved in ensuring open competition and that all developments and purchases are in accord with government policies and practices.


Donald W. Munro: Does the minister become involved in this committee once it has decided what it is going to do, or does the minister have any say whatsoever in this?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would not care to give advice to Mr. McLeish on which of the radar systems would give the best bang for the buck in Canada at this time. Really I am at loss to find out what the role of a minister is. I read MacGregor Dawson and he tells me on page so-and-so that the minister should not be an expert. I do not want to teach political science to my hon. friend. I am not supposed to be an expert. 1 am not going to say, "Hey, McLeish, buy this radar, it is the one I like", because it is red or blue or whatever it is. Is that the role of a minister, according to my hon. friend?


Donald W. Munro: I wonder if the minister has ever been brought up to date on some of the problems confronting air traffic controllers at Victoria international airport? Is he aware, for example, that within the last six months there have been near misses reported at the rate of at least one a month? I also hope he is aware-if he is not, he has not been listening to my question-that there is no radar in use at Victoria international airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am certainly aware of it because my hon. friend has taken very good care to make me aware of it. As to the radar system, he asks me the question every time he sees me-on elevators and everywhere. So how can I not be obsessed by it? I have consulted people who know about these things and they have assured me, on a stack of Bibles, that Victoria is not in trouble now, that the service is covered from Vancouver, that the distance is not an abnormal one, and that this is done in all other civilized parts of the world. There is nothing abnormal about it. I keep repeating that to my hon. friend, and he keeps not believing what is being said.
On the subject of misses, near misses, separation, or whatever you want to call it, he brings all of these cases to my attention. I pass the information on. The department makes inquiries, surveys, analyses, investigations, and what-not, on location. I am assured that this is not the case. I pass on the news to my hon. friend who keeps not believing what he is being told. Maybe that is why he was such a distinguished ambassador. He never believes what he sees but prefers to go

December 4, 1980
Supply
and find out for himself. So, be my guest. Is there anything else I can humanly do to satisfy his curiosity? Am I not being responsible in what I am doing?


Donald W. Munro: I hope on the next visit to Victoria international airport the minister does not have a near miss. Has he had any feedback from his officials, from Mr. McLeish or anyone else, about aircraft going into Victoria international airport through parachutists-through 20 or 30 parachutists?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, that report was verified. I read it. Radar would not pick up parachutists, even if we had radar that was operating at that time. That question from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has been brought up several times. The term "near-miss" is an expression used by the media. There is great variance between what a civilian considers a near miss and the certain minimal loss of separation that is required to be reported to Transport Canada.


Donald W. Munro: I would like to ask the
minister one final question with regard to civilians. One of these incidents was reported by an RCMP officer, and I think his testimony could be relied upon. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that parachutes and parachutists do not grow up out of the ground; they are dropped from aircraft. The aircraft, at least, would be picked up by radar if radar were being used. These were American parachutists and they were over American soil. Why is there no co-ordination in that area, particularly on a flight path? I think this situation is worth inquiring into. Why is there no co-ordination with Vancouver when there is going to be a parachute drop on the flight path to Victoria international airport, which is presumably controlled by Vancouver? Why is there no co-ordination between Vancouver and the military in the EJnited States which are going through an exercise? Has there been no report on that? If there has, why has it not been made public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sure there is such co-ordination between the United States authorities and Canada.
I just want to say I am sorry I showed a bit of impatience a moment ago. It is part of the exercise, presumably; I apologize. What made me a bit impatient is that I thought I had done my job in these matters. I had brought these situations to the attention of the officials who had conducted the inquiry in the Victoria situation. I remember regularly signing correspondence to my hon. friend on these matters. I want to philosophize for half a second. It is strange the way things are seen. The last time I was in Victoria-which was in recent times-I forgot to go and see the radar system. I must say I regret that, though I would not have understood it anyway.


Donald W. Munro: It is not there. There is no radar.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I remember the baggage tray located outside the airport. I thought it was beautiful. I thought it was remarkably poetic, pretty, useful, convenient and what-not. I took it that
the assumption was that it never rained in Victoria, and 1 regretted not having accepted an invitation some years ago to teach there.


Donald W. Munro: I was not talking about that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought you were talking about baggage facilities.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, but behind the baggage counter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what I am talking about. If that is not what the hon. member is talking about, I am sorry.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I did permit a last question, but with the news that the question and answer are dissociated from one another, I have no choice but to recognize the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions I would like answered. These concern the closure of express offices throughout Canada. There was an article in The Globe and Mail on November 18, 1980, which reported a decision of CN Express to close about half its 70 terminals in Canada, many before the end of 1981, starting with 15 express terminals in the Atlantic region.
I have a letter with me from employees of CN Express in Nova Scotia in which they express their concern at the reduction of about 40 per cent of the services. This will result in the loss of 254 jobs in the maritime provinces alone and over 1,100 jobs across Canada. At the same time someone from Newfoundland phoned me. He was concerned about what was happening to the rail service in that province and its turnover to Terra Nova Transport, the company now responsible for rail services in Newfoundland.
My first question is this. When the ten-year period is up- the amount of time which was given by a previous minister of transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, to prove whether the rail service in Newfoundland was a profitable venture or not-will the rail service be pulled out completely? What will happen to the fellow who called me with 35 years' seniority in CN? Will he be out of a job along with many others? At the end of the ten-year period which Mr. Lang talked about when he was minister of transport, will you reassess the situation and look at the service which is called for under section 262 of the Railway Act, or will you close down the rail system in Newfoundland?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this participation. I meant to speak about the railway situation in Newfoundland in my opening remarks but I did not finish my remarks because of the time limit. The hon. member for Regina West knows all about the railway and he is always on track.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Don't use my time on him.
December 4, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: If my memory serves me correctly, the Sullivan report came out in 1977. One of its recommendations was the elimination of the railways in Newfoundland, not because that board did not like railroads, but because the railroads did not fit into the transportation system. Since then there have been a number of debates and federal-provincial meetings. There have been only a few in the last year or so because of the two elections, among other reasons. However, the officials were still in contact, but the warmth of the relationship was not as good as that which normally exists.
A few weeks ago I went to St. John's. I met the premier and the minister of transport for that province. We had a very good conversation. 1 tried to sell him the idea of trade-offs. This idea of trade-offs is in the Sullivan report. One of the fears provinces have, particularly in the east, is that the federal government will not continue to support them financially as well as they have in the past. My hon. friend is aware of the tremendous sums of money which go into the subsidization of transportation in the Atlantic provinces.
The idea is to create a transportation envelope, a sum of money going from Ottawa to province X. The province, then being assured of that minimum sum of money, could then begin to allocate money, in consultation with the federal government, to the best form of transportation for the province. That is the philosophy. In other words, envelope, tradeoff, multimodal and so forth.
That is the notion I was trying to sell to the province of Newfoundland. In that context, knowing that the money which goes to the railway now would not be lost, it might be that the province could look at transformation or maintenance in a slightly different light. Anyway, that was my purpose. I was trying to convince the authorities in Newfoundland to accept a five-year global transportation plan and a five-year railway plan, with an experimental phase to find out whether the railway was a viable proposition. It was with the thought that, if the province itself realized that it was not a viable proposition, the money would not be lost; it could be used to build roads, buy buses, or whatever.


An hon. Member:: So much for your energy program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is debatable which is more costly, a full bus or an empty train. Officials have met since that time. I have not had a report because I have been too busy here. In any event, this exercise will be continued in the coming weeks.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Chairman, I take it that we will not know what is to happen when the ten-year period is up, as announced by the Hon. Otto Lang. He said that the rail service would terminate under Terra Nova Transport. However, I am still concerned about the closure of the CN Express stations across Canada. I have mentioned the people who will be losing their jobs in the maritime provinces. At the same time, I am also concerned about western Canada.
Prior to the announcement on November 18, as reported in The Globe and Mail, I knew that the express station in The Battlefords community in which I reside had closed on Octo-
Supply
ber 24. Even after much protest from the community and from myself as a member of Parliament, the station closed. We asked for a hearing to be held. We made reference to section 262 of the Railway Act. We mentioned the erosion of services in the area over the past number of years. We wanted all of this looked into very closely. If I look back over the years I have lived in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake area, which is a part of western Canada, I have seen the rail service deteriorate, even in my young years. The constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake covers over one-third of the geographic area of the province. There is no point in the constituency where you can have rail passenger service. The train goes through there, but there is no passenger service at any point in the constituency. There is no mobile operator in The Battlefords. There is one mobile operator in the Meadow Lake area. Then we had the closure of the CN Express station in The Battlefords. There is no service at all in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency from rail, other than for the movement of grain, which has not been very effective either in past years. There is a story of plugged grain elevators from Medstead to Robinhood, Meadow Lake and many other points in the constituency. I am concerned about this.
My next question on this erosion and closure of service is whether this is because the service is too costly to upgrade and keep in place. Are these closures a money saving item, or are they because of the bad service provided by the railways in the past. Which of those two is it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With regard to CN Express, Mr. Chairman, I have already answered a number of questions today and on previous days. I emphasize that even if money was an important consideration, it was not the only one. It may not even have been the most important. However, the money aspect is there. CN Express lost $14 million in 1970. It is now losing $57 million or $58 million yearly. If it goes on, it will lose more and more money. I explained that this afternoon. As I said earlier, because of the nature of the beast, being relatively heavy in administrative terms, it is not in a position to compete with smaller operators, operations of ten guys with five trucks. They can operate faster, working weekends, off hours and so on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: CN used to do it, and they quit.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The argument being made is an understandable one. In any event, they are not in a position to compete because the smaller companies can specialize, carrying smaller parcels and so on. CN decided to get out of this area while continuing with larger shipments. There is a technical word which escapes me at the moment-less than carload, I am told. We are witnessing the consequences of this.
Some people will lose their jobs. I stated previously that CN Express has guaranteed that up to 90 per cent of those affected by these moves will be pre-pensioned, relocated or retrained. They are going out of their way to act in a humanitarian fashion.

December 4, 1980
Supply


Douglas Keith Anguish: Will 1,100 people across Canada be retrained and put in other jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. CN says they are guaranteeing the employment of all those people.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Can you promise those 1,100 people they will not lose their jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am repeating the guarantee CN has given to the union which, by the way, is co-operating in this. The president of the union is co-operating with CN Express.


Douglas Keith Anguish: He is not very happy with 1,100 people losing their jobs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am saying that co-operation with the union is a fact. The hon. member can verify that if he wants. The 90 per cent figure is one that CN used in a communique they issued on this matter. The biggest problem, accepting the fact that employment is an important one, is with the communities. A number of communities feel they will be affected too harshly by this. Discussions are now going on. This afternoon I raised the question as to whether it would be possible for CN Express to maintain one point in Prince Edward Island, to establish a slightly different kind of relationship between Moncton, which will be the headquarters for CN Express operations in the maritimes, and Halifax, Sydney, and so on. This is the sort of adjustment which is now taking place.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I thank the minister for that reply. 1 have a couple of questions following up on that. Will the minister agree that the services I describe to places such as The Battlefords have decreased over the years? Second, does he relate the closure of the express stations to an expenditure item, the fact that the railways will save money? I would like to know how money would be saved by the closure of express stations. The minister must keep in mind it cannot be a total saving. Other carriers have to be paid, such as Kindersley Transport which does the interlining in the area of Saskatchewan I represent. How much money will be saved? Does the minister agree there has been an erosion of service over the years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, in all of these discussions there is a bit of a philosophical base. The hon. member appears to believe the government should play a major role in all of these matters. He has been well trained by the hon. member for Regina West in believing that section 262 of the Railway Act orders the railways to deliver wherever in the country there is something to be sent. That has been contradicted by the Supreme Court, yet the hon. member for Regina West will believe it "until death do us part". This is the debate.
What happens when CN Express leaves a community because it cannot compete as it operates differently than it used to, is that somebody picks up the work. It may not be the same person who gets the work. That is why CN is offering pre-pensioning and relocation. However, the work does not disappear. Somebody else does it. It is no longer the Government of Canada through CN Express. That is why so much of the debate is in the minds of the two members. I do not believe the Government of Canada has to do it all directly. If the private sector can do a job as well and cheaper, why not?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Will the minister please answer how much money will be saved by closing the express stations as opposed to bringing in by carrier? What is the dollar saving? There was a meeting in the Battlefords with Mr. Dawson of Winnipeg who told us that a great deal of money will be saved. He stated that the reason for closing the express stations was to cut the deficit of CN. How much money will be saved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, 1 do not know exactly how much money will be saved in the Battlefords. However, the general impression I have gained is that there will be a reduction in losses when the program is complete. I am advised $50 million.
I do not know exactly what these figures mean. I would like a bit more discussion on this subject. The figure I have in mind is $57 million, and increasing. Presumably CN Express hopes that by getting out of small parcels and remaining in the less than carload trade, it can cut its losses. Because it hopes to cut losses, it is in a position to be rather generous to its employees who will be affected by this move. As I said, the employees will be pre-pensioned, relocated or retrained. I have repeated ad nauseam that the information I have is that up to 90 per cent of those affected will be so treated. It is difficult to stop the world, to prevent change or transformations from taking place. This is one of them. CN Express is trying to do it in as responsible a fashion as possible.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I think I have time for one final question. I sincerely believe there is a problem. We understand the railways are losing money. With the loss of passenger service, express service and mobile operators, all the railways will do is haul grain, and they do not do that very efficiently. Will the minister, under section 262 which he referred to and the member from Regina West referred to, hold a hearing in the Battlefords area into the lack of services not only for the Battlefords but for places like St. Walburg, Turtleford, Med-stead and Meadow Lake to see what the people in those areas have to say and what their concerns are about the loss of services? The area is going through an economic boom right now. They are into heavy oil, they are into mining. It is an area of the country that is developing. We need better rail service and not a deterioration of that service. Will the minister consider holding a hearing in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, preferably in the Battlefords, so that the people there can express their concerns to the minister and to the Canadian Transport Commission?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian Transport Commission knows what it has to do. I do not have to give them instructions on these matters. 1 will not contradict myself to the point of asking the Transportation Commission to do that. I have been standing on the floor of the House today, and last week, defending what CN Express is doing. Since they cannot compete, they want to get out of the transportation of small parcels
December 4, 1980

rather than defend the way they are doing it. It will have to take place.
As a general proposition, CN are not in business to lose money. They have CN Express, on which they always lose money, so they want to lose less money so they can pay the Government of Canada better dividends next year than they were able to pay last year. That is what I meant when I talked about CN being both a business and a responsibility. This is where the balancing act takes place, and no one has written a description of that because it varies from one circumstance to the other. If CN find out that there are a number of things they do not do well and others that they do better, then they should do what they do best.


David Michael Collenette: It is somewhat novel for me to be speaking on a matter of substance rather than procedure or points of order, or questions on the order paper. It reminds me of the old days when I was vice-chairman of the transport committee. I want to inform the House, for those who do not realize it, that the members of the transport committee, over the years, have worked very well together and basically co-operated with one another on a very non-partisan basis. I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the member for Vegre-ville, the former minister of transport, the member for Regina West, and the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East are here. All of us worked together on a non-partisan basis to improve passenger rail service in this country.
1 am not that immodest that I would not take credit along with those individuals I have mentioned for the fact that VIA Rail was created in 1977 at the behest of myself and other members of that committee who have been concerned about the deterioration of passenger rail services, for years and years. I think that credit must be given where it really falls, and that is to all members of this House who have supported passenger rail. I might say to hon. members, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister, because he was not here between 1974 and 1979 when we had that really tough fight to get passenger rail service re-established, that it was a tough fight. It was a fight that was won, over the resistance of people within the Department of Transport.
I commend the minister's predecessor, Mr. Lang, and those senior officials in his department who recognized that the formation of a totally dedicated passenger rail corporation would be in the best long-term interests of this country, and was long overdue. I commend to the minister certain parts of the speeches made by the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Regina West on the subject of VIA Rail, and I can say to him that I share some of their concerns.
I share the concern of the hon. member for Regina West about the unenviable position VIA Rail was put into when it was first started, in that it had to take CP and CN equipment which was not maintained properly or well. In the case of CP it was in an absolutely disastrous state. The locomotives were so run down that I believe many of them were actually written off. And we expected a passenger rail corporation to do a
Supply
credible job! I think Mr. Roberts and the people at VIA Rail have done an excellent job over the last three years, but they are going to need a lot of help from all hon. members on this side of the House because, as the hon. member for Vegreville pointed out, with the escalating energy costs and with the shortage of oil something must become apparent to the government and the officials in the Department of Transport. It certainly has been the case with me for many years.
What must become apparent is that the future for transporting large numbers of people in this country has to be passenger rail in the corridor areas. I know that the government gave about $200 million to VIA for the purchase of the new LRC equipment which will be coming on-stream next year but, with all due respect, that is not enough.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right on.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Roberts, the president of VIA Rail, wrote a letter to me. I have regular correspondence with him. We should write a book. I try to keep up my interest in passenger rail, and I have the letter here. I have Mr. Roberts' permission to make this public, and at the end of my remarks I propose to have it appended to Hansard, if there is the unanimous consent of the House. Some of the things Mr. Roberts says in his letter are quite startling and contrary to the given line-when I say the "given line", I say that with all due respect-by the department over the years as to why we cannot have in this country a truly rapid, viable, passenger rail service in the corridor. I will not read the letter now because I hope I will get the consent of hon. members to append it to Hansard-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: -but the president of VIA Rail talks in terms of plans which are now on the drawing board of VIA Rail. VIA Rail would like to realize within the next five years a travel time between Quebec and Montreal of one hour and fifty minutes; Montreal and Ottawa, one hour; Ottawa to Toronto, two hours and forty minutes; Toronto to Windsor, two hours and thirty minutes; and Montreal to Toronto, three hours and forty minutes. This is the first time I can recall that the president of VIA Rail has actually been pinned down to the fast service members of this House have been advocating for years.
In his letter Mr. Roberts went on to explain to me how this is to be done. It is to be done largely through a solely passenger dedicated track operating from Quebec City right through to Windsor. This involves using part of the special tunnel in Montreal, the Mount Royal tunnel, and negotiations have to be undertaken with the railways. It involves using the CP line from Vankleek Hill, which I understand was built about 80 or 90 years ago by Canadian Pacific to take trains, in those days, at speeds of up to 95 or 100 miles an hour and which has been allowed by that railway to become run down over the years. Only one train runs over it just to keep the company's options open. I think that is "The Canadian"

December 4, 1980
Supply
passenger service which has now been taken over by VIA Rail. That goes through Vankleek Hill, Ontario. That is one aspect.
The other aspect would be going through Smiths Falls, and we all know about that problem. It is absolutely ludicrous to visitors to this country who take rail between Ottawa and Toronto. It is fine from Toronto to Brockville, but then they have to be switched. It takes about half an hour to switch them on to the track. I believe it is a CP track to Smiths Falls. I may have it the wrong way around, but the track between Brockville and Smiths Falls has a slow order of 25 miles an hour on it because the track is so rotten. I have been stuck on that train many a night. I do not know whether the tracks have seized up, or the trains have seized up.
1 think that not to have the nation's capital lined by rail to the second largest city in the country is indeed unfortunate, and something which I am sure the minister will correct, because I have talked with the minister here and there about these concerns, and I know that he really would like to see an improvement. It must be seen within the context of my remarks that I note good faith on the part of the minister and the government in trying to improve passenger rail.
Mr. Roberts also talks about building a new 60 kilometres line to link Smiths Falls with Belleville. That would be a completely new track. It would join the main line and then go right to Toronto.
I do not really want to make too much of a speech because I would like the minister to reply, and I am sure he is making notes of some of the things I say. On the main line a few years ago there was a special run of the Turbo at 142 miles an hour. That was clocked going through Kingston. Admittedly, Department of Transport personnel were involved in the test. All the crossings were closed off. It was done at a quiet time of day, but I submit that if that could have been done three or four years ago under very strict supervision, we do not have to bury all the underpasses and we do not have to build bridges and involve astronomical costs to make the main line truly viable.
I became frustrated in the Standing Committee on Transport when I heard people from the department and Mr. Lang at the time, saying it would cost half a billion dollars or a billion dollars to improve this section of track. That does not seem to be the case, because I think that with the appropriate crossings and signalling equipment we can run trains much faster.
One specific thing I would like the minister to answer is who it is who determines that no train can run more than 95 miles an hour along that stretch of track when, in the test run a few years ago, a train was clocked at about 142 miles an hour. I asked Mr. Benson a few years ago because I was always told by the minister-I am not talking about the present minister but the former minister-that the CTC was the one. The railway said it was the CTC. I talked to Mr. Benson in committee, and he said, "No, it is the railways". I would like to find out who is responsible for artificially limiting the speed of passenger trains on the main passenger rail line in this country.
Mr. Roberts also mentioned the fact that the corridor service is not limited to Quebec-Windsor. It also involves Edmonton to Calgary. I understand that there are discussions under way with the Alberta government on building a highspeed demonstration track between Edmonton and Calgary. It would be cheaper than building a new four-lane highway, with all the extra costs involved.
If it is agreeable-I know I cannot table documents other than those pertaining to official government business in my role with the Privy Council-I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to append Mr, Roberts' letter to me of October 29, 1980, to Hansard.


Denis Éthier: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to the effect that he be permitted to append the document he has in his hand to today's Hansard. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Denis Éthier: So ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of above letter see appendix.}


David Michael Collenette: I hope I get the letter back because I did not make a copy before I came here. I am sure I will because it will be in Hansard. I think the comments in Mr. Roberts' letter will be beneficial to the minister and all members of this House. As I say, I have the permission of Mr. Roberts to make that letter public.
I want to deal with another aspect just briefly, and to throw out an idea. I am not an expert on western Canada, and I defer to those hon. members here from western Canada who know their region best, but the government announced a $4 billion western development fund in the budget.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is after you take out eleven.


David Michael Collenette: One of the premises involved is that, by virtue of the fact that more moneys will be accruing to the federal government, the oil and gas industry will in a sense be channelling money into this western development fund. The federal government has undertaken that, with the excess revenues it will get, there will be a $4 billion fund. I am in favour of that because one of the things I fervently believe in is Canadianization of the oil and gas industry.
I throw this out as a novel idea. It may get me into trouble, but I have been in trouble in the past, and I am not worried about that. I think it might be a good idea to look at it. If we expect the oil and gas industry to contribute a higher amount of moneys accruing from oil and gas-and I agree with that- then perhaps we should also-and I am sure Mr. Ian Sinclair will quiver or quake when I say this-look at the fact that Canadian Pacific was granted enormous land titles a hundred years ago. Yes, it was private capital which built that railway, but it was back here every year to John A. Macdonald and his successors, cap-in-hand saying, "Give us some more money".
December 4, 1980

I think Canadian Pacific International, Canadian Pacific Investments, CPR or whatever its official title is-I know there are a number of companies-is a great standard bearer for Canada throughout the world. I have great respect for Mr. Sinclair as an individual, and for the members of that company, but it seems to me that if we are to ask the oil and gas industry to pay a royalty back to western Canada and to Canadians in general-I suppose that is what we are doing with the extra money coming from that-then perhaps we should also look at the fact that it is long overdue for the people of this country to receive a dividend from the land we gave Canadian Pacific a hundred years ago. I think a good case could be made that that kind of dividend should be paid to the people of Canada.
I know that CPR is investing heavily in electrification and in other improvements to its track. I fully accept its plans, and I think they are made in good faith, but CP has been a successful company. I should leave a few minutes for the minister to respond. I think this might be an idea which might be worth the government's consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has made some points about the CPR. I wonder if he knows that in addition to 34 million acres of land and hundreds of millions of dollars, Canadian Pacific owes the people of Canada $ 1 billion in deferred taxes, that that is why CP is making a profit, and that that is why it appears to the hon. member to be successful.


Mr. Blaikie:: An excellent point of order.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will comment on that last remark. This subject is a popular one, as my friend the parliamentary secretary knows. It was the object of a resolution at the Winnipeg Liberal convention. An investigation into what CP has done with all the money it received way back is a popular subject.
I understand that CP has been investigated a number of times. Whoever made the decision came out with a balanced judgment that yes, indeed, CP received great favours and yes, indeed, it served Canada well, so perhaps there is a need for another one of those. 1 do not know.
On the subject of rail, the parliamentary secretary reminded us that the government created VIA and supported it strongly through the first two or three years. 1 said this morning that it was a bit too early to conclude, but I did recite a number of the good things VIA is doing now and pointed out the great aspirations the government has that it will continue to pursue. I spoke yesterday about load factors, lower losses than anticipated, and all that, so I do not want to repeat it.
With respect to Mr. Roberts' letter I will read it with great pleasure, I am quite sure, because I want to know if he has estimated what will be needed in order to reach the high speeds on the line mentioned. When my hon. friend asked who makes the decisions as to what speeds can be reached-is it the CTC, the government or VIA-I felt like shouting "the bed". The bed of the track itself decides what speed can be reached,
Supply
because I presume this is what gives out first. I questioned Mr. Marsham on the subject, and he tells me that our railway beds in Canada are freight beds. They were built for freight and not for passengers, as opposed to the beds in Europe. I am talking always about railway beds, not ordinary beds, in Europe, for example, or in Japan.
In Japan, the bullet train runs very rapidly on a specialized passenger railway bed, be that as it may. What the minister sees in all that, just to be confidential for a minute, is the competition. We had an expression of that yesterday when the hon. member for Regina West said he believes the Minister of Transport should help only the railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member said it in committee, and I am quoting him with a smile on my face because I know the hon. member for Regina West was making his point with a slight exaggeration. However, there is competition between the different modes of transportation. Each of them thinks the other one has more advantages. That is what they have in common. I received representations from owners of bus companies who have said, "What the heck are you doing spending some $420 million on railway transportation when we, the people operating the buses have no subsidies whatsoever?"


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Highways.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, that is the kind of discussion that could start now. All I want to do is to make this one observation. I think that theory will not carry you very far in these matters. It seems to me that we must save the best of railway transportation and occasionally move to STOL, notwithstanding some opposition to it, because it is a mode of transportation which is convenient in certain localities and for certain tasks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the right place.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed. I just want to say on this occasion that I am not being theoretical. I think there is a balancing act between the different modes of transportation in Canada. With respect to railways, I want to say that 1 am almost as romantic on the subject as are my friends.
I am the son of a railway employee who worked for 45 years in Drummondville, Quebec. It is almost unbelievable that the CN tracks go right through the town of Drummondville. They will be coming up for a relocation program one of these days. The CP goes the other way. The house where my parents lived was right in between those two, so we were woken up in the mornings by the sound of locomotives. One could say I was born with smoke in my nose, and perhaps that has something to do, although quite remotely, with the fact that I became Minister of Transport, which is obviously the climax so far as I am concerned.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to discuss, in the minister's estimates, the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, and

December 4, 1980
Supply
to call on him once again to reimburse the city of Winnipeg for $2.5 million for the cost overrun which is the direct responsibility of the federal government.
1 wish the minister would listen because this is a rather important matter. It is the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. I am once again calling on the minister to reimburse the city of Winnipeg for $2.5 million which is the direct responsibility of the federal government for delaying the permit which was originally to be issued between December, 1978, and February, 1979.
I want to quote from a letter which the minister wrote to the mayor of Winnipeg this week, which was received only a couple of days ago. 1 will not read the whole letter. In the letter the minister points out that the city made a request in 1977 for a permit and for financial aid in the building of a structure to span the CPR railyards, which is the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. Mr. Otto Lang, the former minister of transport, realized that if he were to approve such a grant on a simple application for funds, he would forever after be subject to criticism for making this serious and locally significant funding decision without knowledge of the cost of the alternatives, and one example is rail relocation.
As I pointed out to the minister before, $1,100,000 worth of studies had been done prior to December, 1978. Here is one of them, and I suggest the minister read it sometime to see all the work that has been put into studying railway relocation and the overpass. There is no need for any more studies, and I will be covering that in a little more detail in a moment.
In the minister's letter to the mayor, he also stated:
Consequently, he replied that it would be normal to consider the approval of a grade separation grant only after having assurances that the alternatives had been investigated to the extent that would support the decision being requested. The response on the alternatives containing the basic decision factors was not provided by the city.
That is a false statement. The city was not asked to provide any additional information, and I will refer to the dates in just a moment.
The letter goes on to read:
As a result, the federal government was required to undertake its own study to assign a cost to the rail relocation options before taking the decision to fund the construction of the bridge. I must advise you that in this situation the federal government cannot accept any additional financial responsibilities.
That is for the cost overrun. The city of Winnipeg has good grounds to sue the federal government if the department does not reimburse it for $2.5 million. I will go into the chronology of events right now. What is disturbing to me is that the man who is aware of the chronology of events and of all the details, is the gentleman sitting to the minister's right, his parliamentary secretary who was on the city council at the time when all of this was happening. He knows all about it. He knows perfectly well that the contents of the minister's letter to the mayor are incorrect.
I will go into the chronology of events to bring the minister up to date. By December, 1978, the then minister of transport, Otto Lang, had approved the construction of the overpass, and his approval was to be forwarded to the CTC for its approval.
The $7.6 million in initial costs of the federal share was approved as well. Design work would have begun immediately and construction could have commenced two or three months later. Mr. Lang was ready to give authority to CTC to issue the permit, and design work could have been started immediately. But, as the minister well knows, it was owing to the interference of the present Minister of Employment and Immigration who put pressure on Mr. Lang that the permit was withheld. Otto Lang was ready to issue it, and he did not ask the city of Winnipeg for any further studies.
On December 6, 1978, Mr. Lang telegraphed the mayor of Winnipeg saying that the federal government was giving its approval in principle for the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, funds to be provided under UTAP. On December 20, 1978, the mayor sent an acknowledgment to Mr. Lang expressing his delight that the overpass had finally been given approval. The mayor then asked for details on how to proceed with the project, but there was never any correspondence, telegrams, or anything else saying that they wanted an additional study from the city of Winnipeg. The hon. member for St. Boniface, who is sitting beside the minister, knows that only too well.
On February 7, 1979, Mr. Lang replied that there was little to do. All that was needed was an agreement from the province that a portion of the UTAP money would be assigned to the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. On February 16, 1979, Mr. Mercier, the attorney general of Manitoba, wrote to Mr. Lang and confirmed that the 1979 budget included the provincial portion. This project was given top priority by the province in its 1979 budget. So there was no request at all for a further study which the minister wanted from the city.
I will now ask the minister to make an apology to the city of Winnipeg, in writing, for the contents of his letter. The information contained there is incorrect. The department never asked for any further study to be done, and I am asking the minister once again to reimburse the city.
If the minister has any evidence or proof that he sent any letters, telegrams or anything to the city of Winnipeg requesting a further study in December of 1978, it is the minister's obligation to produce that documentation. I was in touch with the mayor's office today and was told that they have never received such a request from the minister, his official, or whoever was in charge of the department at that time. As I indicated previously, the mayor was happy that Mr. Otto Lang was to issue a permit and give Winnipeg the funds to proceed with the needed overpass. They never received any request for a further study. I challenge the minister to produce the documentation.
We all know why there was a delay of the permit. It was caused by the present Minister of Employment and Immigration who was then a member of the Manitoba legislature. I refer to an article which appeared in a Winnipeg newspaper in December, 1978. It was headed: "Local lobbying stalls funding for new bridge". It had nothing to do with asking the city to
December 4, 1980

conduct another study. The caption under the minister's photograph read: "Lloyd Axworthy... wins round". In part the article indicated:
Lobbying by Liberal MLA Lloyd Axworthy .. . has killed, or at least stalled, special federal funding for the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass.
Deputy Mayor Bill Norrie said Tuesday federal Transport Minister Otto Lang told him in effect that the city's request for $3.9 million in special funding has been turned down.
This was because of the interference of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry; it had nothing to do with the city not conducting another study.
Also I should like to point out to the minister and the hon. member for St. Boniface some of the comments made in the Manitoba legislature about this chain of events. As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 29, 1980, a Manitoba MLA called "the myth of rail line relocation ... one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated b,y any level of government".
When the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry contacted Mr. Otto Lang, he should have asked him to hold the permit for one week until the minister of finance and the president of the treasury board were asked whether there was any funding for rail relocation. If he had done that, he would have found out that there was no program, no funding, and no intention of getting into a rail relocation program. Then he could have said, "That is it, you will have to issue a permit for the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass". But, instead, he interfered all the time, which cost the city of Winnipeg an additional $2.5 million.
In June, 1980, a city of Winnipeg councillor attacked the federal government for suggesting that the $168.6 million relocation project is still possible. He said:
It's a pipe dream. It will not happen, it cannot happen and it's about time we said so.
There was never any reference to the federal government asking the city for another study. Also the urban affairs minister, Mr. Mercier, as reported in the June 17, 1980, edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, said that the federal government should pay the $2 million additional cost because it caused a delay in construction. That additional cost has now risen to $2.5 million.
On September 11, 1980, Mayor Bill Norrie said:
I don't agree with what they're doing because they're not being realistic. There isn't enough money for rail relocation and they should recognize that reality.
In that instance "they" meant the federal government. Also the Leader of the Official Opposition questioned the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board a few months ago in the House about funding for rail relocation. I have never witnessed two more evasive answers in my life. They had absolutely no intention of providing any funding for rail relocation in Canada. They simply did not have the money. If it was ever given to one city, they would have to provide the funding to other cities as well.
I find it somewhat strange that while 1 am asking the minister questions in Committee of the Whole he should walk out of the chamber; it is a real "sweetheart" arrangement. I
Supply
want some answers to my questions. I hope the grinning parliamentary secretary, who thinks it is a big joke that the citizens of Winnipeg are required to pay this additional $2.5 million, will run out to the lobby and bring the minister back in here to provide some answers.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that the Minister of Transport has been sitting here since the commencement of oral questions at two o'clock. He has been granted permission to go and get a bite to eat.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In the middle of my question.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I welcome this opportunity because I do not know how many times the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine challenged me in the House saying that I do not speak in the House, that I will not answer, that I do not pressure the minister.
A couple of days ago I was fortunate enough to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It was challenged because members opposite felt that a parliamentary secretary should not rise to ask any questions or to move such motions in the House. The hon. member has been a member much longer than I; he knows the rules, yet he attempts to make his point in such a way that people will believe I am not doing my job. I speak to the minister in his chambers, I have his ear, and I make representations on behalf of Winnipeg and Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I was part of the Winnipeg city council. I came here with Mayor Norrie, Mayor Steen and Gerald Mercier who is now the attorney general of Manitoba. We saw Otto Lang; we made application for UTAP funds. UTAP funds are based on a per capita rate. With one million people living in Manitoba, over five years Manitoba is entitled to $10,500,000. The province of Manitoba indicated that it was willing to dedicate $7.5 million of its UTAP funds to build the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. There was no escalation clause, it was Manitoba's per capita fund. If that province wishes to attribute it to a certain project, it may do so; but there is nothing in UTAP funding which provides for an escalation because costs have risen.
The second point is that the city of Winnipeg never conducted the pre-required studies to consider rail relocation versus overpasses. It is customary for a city to pay 25 per cent or 50 per cent of the cost of a study, yet Otto Lang's department agreed to pay $90,000 or 100 per cent of the cost of that study. The study was completed and the city received its permit from the CTC to go ahead with the overpass. Last week the executive policy committee indicated that it would go in reverse, that it would conduct a study and consult with the people to see which project should be followed-the overpass or rail relocation.
1 should like to refer to rail relocation because I think the facts should be on the table. Rail relocation was estimated at a cost of $168 million. One could say it was high or low. But, I was part of the executive policy committee which went to see

December 4, 1980
Supply
Ed Schreyer, who was the premier of Manitoba at the time, and I am able to say that rail relocation requires the consent of the provincial government. The city of Winnipeg made its case to the government of the day, and the government of the day indicated that it would consent to the relocation of the yards but that it would never consent to the relocation of the lines.
When main lines are relocated, one must know where they are to be placed and one must have the consent of all municipalities affected. One is supposed to make a study to determine where the lines are to be relocated. None of those studies was ever perpetrated. The city of Winnipeg indicated that it did not want to make the proper application, but that it would like to find out in advance. It was similar to a person going to a bank manager and saying, "Lend me some money; I do not have a plan but I will build something some day. How much will you lend me?" This was the manner in which the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba approached the federal government.
The fact of the matter is that even if the federal government had $80 million or $85 million for rail relocation, the city and the province would say that it was not a priority with them. If they had the $85 million, they would spend it somewhere else. It is time the facts came out. The hon. member did not come forward as a spokesman for Winnipeg, when Winnipeg itself did not make its case.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We now have more grounds for the city of Winnipeg to commence a lawsuit, after the absolute rubbish we have heard from the hon. member for St. Boniface.
I guess he was not listening to what I was saying. He was chatting to the minister there when I spoke earlier. The $7.6 million in initial costs of the federal share was approved by the minister, Mr. Otto Lang. He was to issue the permit before the member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry talked him out of it. You were not listening when I mentioned that to you.
On December 6, 1978, Otto Lang telegraphed the mayor telling him that the federal government was giving its approval in principle for the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. He did not ask for another study as the minister says in his letter of this week to the mayor. He did not ask for another study. How many times do I have to say that to get it across to you? He said "We are going to issue the permit."
The mayor sent an acknowledgment to Otto Lang-I must keep repeating this, Mr. Chairman, because it is so difficult to get it through to some of these people-the mayor sent an acknowledgment to Lang expressing his delight that the overpass had finally been given approval. He did not wire back and say "We will do a study" or "What study are you talking about?" He thanked him for saying that he was going to issue the permit to build the overpass. The mayor then asked for details on how to proceed with the project. Lang replied that there was little to do. He said there was little to do. He did not say, "Do another study". He said that there was little to do. All that was needed was an agreement from the province that
a portion of their UTAP money would be assigned to the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass. Do you understand that?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Much dearer than you do.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I am not finished yet. The attorney general then wrote to Mr. Lang-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that he is finished, unless there is unanimous consent for him to continue.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will just read one more sentence.


Denis Éthier: I must recognize another member, unless there is unanimous consent for the hon. member to read one more sentence.


A. Daniel McKenzie: They do not want to hear it, that is for sure.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Chairman, despite some of the inferences and suggestions by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine, I wish to go on record and say to the many good people in St. Boniface that they ought to be very proud of their member of Parliament. Not only does he serve them well and with distinction, but he serves this country very well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
I think congratulations are also in order for the Minister of Transport, who in recent months has had to grapple with a great many difficult issues. Many of those issues are in Atlantic Canada. I must say he has done a great job in the short period of time in which he has held that portfolio. With reference to one particular instance in my area of the country, he made a substantial allotment of funds to the Canadian Coastguard College. In making that announcement and in making those moneys available to that institution, it speaks well for our area and that particular institution.
Notwithstanding some of the positive things that the minister has been able to do in his short tenure in that particular portfolio, I take issue with one of the very serious announcements made by Canadian National Express, that is, the announced closure of various CN Express offices in Atlantic Canada. I have gone on record before, Mr. Chairman, to oppose this particular decision, and I wish to reiterate that here this evening.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why do you vote with the government then?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, 1 hear the very paragon and defender of the little guy from St. John's West.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why are you supporting them?


David Charles Dingwall: The great thing we did for this country was defeat him on February 18. I hope he continues to sit on that side of the House providing his barrage of what I would call stupid commentary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why are you voting to support him if you are against this move? What bluff!
December 4, 1980


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to this particular announcement by CN Express. I believe it is wrong in principle. If one is trying to develop Atlantic Canada this is certainly not one of the tools one should do away with. In addition to providing the service to the business community of industrial Cape Breton, CN also provides in excess of 52 jobs. Those jobs are important to industrial Cape Breton where we have high unemployment.
I would like to raise a few other concerns with the minister and his officials with respect to the urban transportation assistance program. It is my understanding there was a five-year allocation of some $8 million for Nova Scotia. I am wondering if the officials or the parliamentary secretary could indicate to me if any of that money will be going to industrial Cape Breton. I understood, particularly, that there was a proposal before the provincial government to provide some sort of bus service from the town of Dominion in the area better known as Sydney-Richmond. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary has any better information with respect to those two areas.
In addition to those concerns I would like to raise another. It has to do with the airport which is in my constituency, the Sydney airport. The present landing systems which are being utilized at that airport leave a great deal to be desired. The present system is better known as the instrument landing system. This particular system is in competition with a new modern system called the microwave landing system.
The new system has a great many advantages, not only for the Sydney airport, and if it were utilized in other airports across the country I am sure Canadians, as well as the experts in that field, would see it would prove worth while. First, it provides high precision for zero landings and multiple approach passes for jets and helicopters. It has 200 frequency channels as opposed to the instrument landing system which has only 40. There is minimal site preparation needed, and it can be set up anywhere, from large airports to remote strips, to helipads, oil rigs, etc. I am advocating that the minister's department go for the microwave landing system.
I think it is a fact that the international civil navigation organization agreed that in 1983 they would embark upon the use of the microwave landing system and that it would be completed by 1995. This means that all airports would have the microwave landing system. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could indicate whether or not the airport in Sydney would be one of the first chosen and, if not, when it might happen in that area.
There are a number of other concerns I would like to raise in relation to the Sydney airport. Some of these concerns are quite appalling, Mr. Chairman. One is in relation to the baggage handling facility at that particular airport. The Sydney airport is very well maintained by the staff there. Unfortunately, the baggage faciity is somewhat old and it is not providing the type of service travellers out of Sydney should have. When you go across the country and see various airports with modern baggage handling facilities-
Supply


Donald W. Munro: What about in my constituency?


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member mentioned the facility in his own constituency and how great it is. But in our airport we do not have a great baggage facility. I would like to see some renovations and improvements made to it in the next few years.
Another concern of mine is in relation to the provision of a gate for passengers to use when getting on and off planes. When one goes to the airport to embark upon a trip to other parts of the country or, indeed, to anywhere in the world, one must walk 700 or a thousand feet in stormy or wet weather. We do not see why people in my constituency and the people of industrial Cape Breton have to put up with that when other areas of the country have facilities which are much more modern.
I hope the department will give consideration to these requests, particularly the baggage facilities, the gate facilities, and the request for turning toward the microwave landing system. I have some other concern in relation to the Sydney airport with regard to the extension of the runway, but perhaps I could get into that matter at a later time and make specific representations to the minister himself.
Another area of concern is with regard to the enlargement of the customs office. I am in the process of making representations to the appropriate minister. While I raise my concerns I am aware that everything cannot be done within a six-month or eight-month period, but I am hopeful that over the next couple of years we will be able to rectify some of the major shortcomings in an area which is deserving of a modern facility and which looks forward to having that facility in the very near future.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, 1 can say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that the Minister of Transport has made representations to CN to consider the continuation of some of its express operations in Sydney. I am hopeful that he will be successful. The minister has also made representations to CN that the express service at Charlottetown be continued. However, these matters will be dealt with tomorrow, and we should have definite results early next week.
The program to which the hon. member referred in Cape Breton comes under UTAP. Two such programs have been approved; the transit vehicle acquisition which is receiving a contribution of $800,000, 50 per cent of which is being provided by UTAP; and a transit facility which is estimated to cost $750,000, with UTAP's share being $600,000. I refer to the bus portion of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Program. The Mount Cabot bus line is to receive assistance of $31,000. To date it has received $5,400. Further details will be forwarded to the hon. member by letter, if requested.
The hon. member spoke of improvements to the Sydney airport, which is being served by ILS. The Department of Transport has made a commitment to ICAO that it will

December 4, 1980
Supply
commence with microwave landing systems, and it is now in its early development stages. As to which airport will have priority, the decision has not yet been taken. The whole matter of the implementation of that kind of program will be taken into consideration, and then the priorization will be established.
The hon. member also spoke of baggage facilities, improving the handling of cargo customs clearance, improvements to the terminal, another runway and passenger gates at the airport. Many of the passenger gates are owned by the airlines. One of the problems which we face, for example, in Winnipeg, is that there are not enough of these passenger gates. When people come down from the north and the temperature is 30 below, they feel as though they are discriminated against because there is no gate at their facility and they must put on parkas to get from the aircraft to the terminal.
A committee on transport has travelled across the nation. The Ministry of Transport is expected to look after 24 national airports, 76 regional airports, 455 local commercial airports, and 503 smaller airports, for a total of 1,058 airports. As we made that trip, we also learned the demands and requirements of all the principal cities we visited and all the provincial governments. If we had $15 billion, we could not meet all the requests. The budget of the Department of Transport is approximately $1.2 billion, and one does not have to be a master mathematician to understand that we cannot meet all the demands in one year, that we must rely on priorization and consider all the statistics as to passenger demand, number of flights-both incoming and outgoing-and so on, and we are doing the best we can with the dollars we have. In fact, that is why we should hurry and approve the estimates and budget of this department so that we may get on with the job.


David Charles Dingwall: Just one final comment, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I do not need to say so, but I would remind the parliamentary secretary that on some of the questions which I raised he was not able to give specific information. I hope that he and his officials will follow up in writing with the answers to my questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the minister is not here. Oh, there he is. I have some serious questions on some serious issues. I am not here to make a speech, but merely to get some information.


Mr. Fox:: That is good news.


John Carnell Crosbie: It will be news if 1 get answers. On September 30, 1980, I wrote to the minister about the drydock and the famous synchrolift which was announced by his predecessors, Messrs. Jamieson and Horner, on December 29, 1978, at St. John's, Newfoundland. On June 20, Canadian National wrote to the Department of IT and C about proceeding with the installation of the synchrolift. On August 6, Canadian National wrote the minister about the delay and setting out the alternatives. On August 22 the minister was sent another letter from Canadian National advising him that the government of Newfoundland had provided an acceptable offer of financial assistance and stated that if the Government of Canada would
not go ahead, the province would. In that letter it was also stated that the province and CN had reached an agreement and that CN was asking for the transfer of land, and there were comments on other matters.
I also understand that the minister was sent a letter from Mr. Bandeen of Canadian National on November 20, 1980. The exchange of land with National Harbours Board has been approved. Approval is needed for certain land owned by the federal government, other than the land owned by the National Harbours Board, at the dockyard to be transferred to CN. As far as I know, Mr. Bandeen in waiting for the answers to three questions with regard to whether the Government of Canada will permit CN to go ahead, along with the province, with the project, as an alternative to the federal government continuing its direct involvement itself.
The first question is, Will the federal government provide the necessary funding as outlined in this correspondence? If the federal government will not, although of course it should, will it permit the province to provide the financing in accordance with an agreement worked out with CN? The third question, as I understand it is: In the event that the province finances the synchrolift, will the Government of Canada convey title to the dockyard at St. John's to CN to operate that dockyard, or will it give them a 99-year lease so that it may go ahead with the modernization and save the dockyard?
I would remind the minister that the Economic Council of Canada report of a week or so ago shows that Newfoundlanders receive only 53.6 per cent of the national average earned income of Canadians. One-twelfth of all total personal income in Newfoundland comes from unemployment insurance as compared to one-fortieth, which is the average across Canada. Through these projects I have mentioned, we have a chance to secure jobs for 350 people and provide for 150 more.
So, Mr. Minister, you have a letter from the president of CN dated November 20. I want to know if it has been answered and, if not, when it will be answered. Every day that passes is a vital day if construction is to begin next spring. Hopefully, the minister will answer the question.
It is vital for the operation of this drydock at St. John's that Russian crews be permitted to use Gander airport as they travel back and forth from Russia, when their ships come in to be repaired. Canadian airlines cannot provide the service from St. John's to Montreal. The Air Transport Board has given permission for Aeroflot to be used for these purposes, operating through Gander until the middle of December. It is vital that this continue or the whole Russian repair business will have to stop. This year, by the way, 31 Russian vessels were repaired in the dockyard of St. John's. That is $2.5 million worth of business. Of these, 25 were scheduled and six were emergency repairs. There is a contract for next year for 25 more vessels. That will go up to 50 or 60, once the synchrolift is installed.
Will the minister urge the Air Transport Board to allow the flights of these crews to take place through Gander by Aero-
December 4, 1980

flot, rather than having them travel via Montreal in view of all these troubles and difficulties they had last year. Those are my first questions.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. Before the hon. minister answers, it has been brought to the attention of the Chair that I have permitted hon. members to address one another in, grammatically speaking, the second person. I do not want to convert the House to the more serious rules of formality, but Hansard, tomorrow, I am told, will rewrite some of the addresses made by members so that they will refer to one another in the third person, as is the custom in the House. 1 would ask hon. members if they would assist the Chair and continue in that tradition.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the subject of Aeroflot coming directly to Gander to pick up people working on the Russian fishing fleet, as I understand it, this agreement has been reached. Authorization given as of November 1, so this is actually taking place. In other words, on a temporary basis, Aeroflot does not have to come to Mirabel and then have some other airline take the Russian citizens to Gander or other places. When 1 heard that, 1 inquired about it and was told of the advantages to the Russians of doing it in this fashion. I was also told that EPA was not now available to do that job. I inquired whether proper attention had been given to other carriers, and I was told that it had. So, on a temporary basis, it is being done.
On the subject of synchrolift, we are faced with two situations. One has to do with the relationship between CN and the government of Newfoundland in connection with the construction of the facility itself. It is well known that IT & C does not disagree with the government of Newfoundland taking over that responsibility, and that discussion is going on now.
Other talks are going on between the National Harbours Board and the CN as to the land on which this will be built. CN and the National Harbours Board, have been discussing this matter for a number of days and I understand that they have reached agreement in principle. There are still some money matters to be concluded, but that discussion is on the right track too, and should be concluded very, very rapidly.
On the first matter, negotiations between CN and Newfoundland are progressing, as I said. CN apparently needs to know what sort of financial agreement they will have with the National Harbours Board before concluding the first one. My information is that things are progressing quite normally, and that they will come to a conclusion very soon.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. minister's information is not correct. These things have all been concluded-I have it right from the horse's mouth, if you want to call it a horse. There is a letter to the minister, dated November 20, from Mr. Bandeen, setting out that the exchange of lands has been agreed to with the National Harbours Board. There is some other federal land about which they now need the minister's formal approval in order that it can be transferred to the dockyard for this synchrolift. He wants a decision from the minister. If the federal government is not going to carry out its obligation to
Supply
finance its own shipyard's extension of the synchrolift-if that is reaffirmed as being the case-then he wants the minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to agree that he may go ahead with the agreement the company has with the province. They have reached agreement with the province. CN is putting up $14 million and the province $7 million. There is an agreement with the province. If the federal government confirms it will not meet its responsibilities, then he wants the minister's consent to go ahead with the province.
If they do go ahead with the province, CN wants title to these assets at the dockyard-the land-the synchrolift, the machinery and the tools that are there, because the Government of Canada has never put one red cent into the dockyards; only CN has. If the province of Newfoundland puts in the money for the synchrolift, CN wants to own the operation, and no longer just hold it as an agent of the federal government. There is a letter from Mr. Bandeen, and every day it passes unanswered, is another day's delay.
1 will ask the minister again whether he would look into that matter as soon as he gets a chance, and answer the letter. The next step is to advise the consultants to prepare the final plans and specifications and try to get ready for tender calls next spring. That is a very favourable time, because the construction companies in Newfoundland are hungry for work then, and will offer very good prices if they can go ahead. The letter is there. I am not going to argue or go into the details of the behaviour of the Government of Canada, I just want the minister to agree. If the government is not going ahead, it is out to punish the people of St. John's West for electing me, which is what it has done. There is $2.5 million provided in the estimates for this project to go forward this year. The government should at least let the province do it, so that Newfoundland can get some economic development.
By the way, the temporary agreement made through the Air Transport Board is only valid to the middle of December. The dockyards cannot deal seriously with the Russians who want to plan their schedule for next year, if they cannot be assured that they will be able to exchange crews and have this arrangement continue for a considerably longer period. Therefore, I would ask the minister or one of his officials to check into that and try to get the extension approved beyond the middle of December, for a few months at least, particularly since Canadian airlines cannot handle the business. Their service is unsatisfactory and the cost of their charters has doubled over a period of months. This is an immensely important economic project for St. John's, and the province has a fantastic unemployment problem.
There is another point. A committee has been set up, comprising federal and provincial officials, to study transportation issues and spending on transportation on Newfoundland. There is a three-year agreement on the Trans-Canada highway. It is called the Canada-Newfoundland primary highway strengthening and improvement agreement and it terminates on March 31 next. Under this agreement, and Newfoundland had $60 million to spend on it; it was to be a 50-50 division, federal and provincial. In effect, the agreement this

December 4, 1980
Supply
year is 25 per cent federal, 75 per cent provincial. It is of immense importance to the government of the province of Newfoundland, to know if there is to be a renewal of this agreement, and what the financial basis of it will be. The Trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland is a very inadequate highway. It is an extremely dangerous, two-lane highway, which carries a huge amount of traffic. It is deteriorating rapidly and needs further work. Is the government going to enter into another Trans-Canada highway strengthening agreement or not, and if so, what are the financial terms?
When is the minister going to make known to the Newfoundland government, through his officials, just what the transportation spending envelope is for Newfoundland? That is the new jargon. No one seems to know what it is. There is supposed to be a long-term strategy. There was a meeting on November 23 of federal officials and Newfoundland officials, on the long-term strategy-the usual palaver is an envelope based on last year's spending. It does not include DREE spending. Federal officials do not know how much money they have. There is some suggestion that it might be a $25 million total program, half federal and half provincial, which is entirely inadequate. What is the position on that?
What is the position on the Sullivan transportation royal commission report? What is the federal position on the latest statement from Premier Peckford on the program for the revitalization of the Newfoundland railway, and on the studies done by a project management and design company and by Canadian Pacific's consultant services in Montreal? As hon. members know, they want to integrate the Newfoundland railway with the North American railway system by converting to standard gauge. The province of Newfoundland wants a new federal Crown corporation established to own the Newfoundland railway and the railways assets of CN in the province. They no longer want CN there. With reference to the railway, they want a new federal Crown corporation. There are other recommendations. The province has said it is now prepared to sit down with representatives of the railway unions, the CN and the federal government to implement that program. What is your reaction to that? What is happening on the Newfoundland transportation scene? There is no province in Canada where transportation is more vital and where there are greater problems.
Before sitting down to give the minister a chance to respond, I have one other item. It is the situation respecting DREE agreements. No DREE agreement has been signed since the new government took office. There has not been a DREE agreement since May, 1979. Apparently DREE does not want to spend any money on roads. All road spending under DREE is going to vanish. Is that true or not? What is going to happen with respect to road construction in Newfoundland.
Is any planning being done for the St. John's harbour facilities. A fire tug is badly needed. It has been requested for the city. There is no tug in the harbour, yet St. John's is located only 160 miles from the new Hibernia development.
Here is a port with all this activity going on which does not even have a tug which can go outside the narrows. The only tug, the Glenmount is not allowed outside the narrows. There is no fire protection; there is no fire tug. Will any action be taken by federal government to do anything to meet this fantastic need, particularly in view of all the offshore activity? All we hear about are pilotage fee increases. Another attempt is being made to get a pilotage fee increase. What is to happen there?
The minister might also deal with the St. John's airport and the need for an improvement in the ILS landing system. I think runway 11 has to be used when there is an east wind. Runway 0826 and runway 11 need to be upgraded to standard category 1 or category 2 ILS. There is also the question of whether St. John's can be used for international service. These are some of the questions of great moment which occur to me and I would like to hear from the minister on those, if I may.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, let me take them one by one, if I can remember them all. First, concerning Aeroflot. As I have indicated, permission has been granted to Aeroflot to stop at Gander. This is a temporary measure in order to give us time to work out a satisfactory permanent arrangement with Aeroflot. My officials are talking to the Russians now. The present situation is that Aeroflot stops at Gander on its regular Moscow-to-Montreal route. These flights drop off fresh fishing crews, pick up tired crews and continue to Montreal, returning non-stop to Moscow. It is a temporary arrangement to permit negotiation toward a more permanent situation.
On the subject of Synchrolift, my hon. friend has an advantage over me. He appears to have copies of correspondence which I do not have here with me. But the latest piece of paper I received today at noon says: "CN is waiting for their final cost analysis of the project before making a firm commitment with the government of Newfoundland." If my hon. friend is better informed than I am, I will bow to his competence. However, that is the situation now. It may be somewhat of a chicken-and-egg situation but we will try to get the chicken out as fast as possible. I am assured by all parties, the CN and the National Harbours Board, that I should not worry because there is no problem. There is no prevention of progress at this point. Consequently, I will not lose sleep on this matter. I will get to it first thing in the morning to be absolutely sure that what I am saying now is correct.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the subject of the primary highway strengthening program, my hon. friend gave a description of it. This is coming to an end now, both with respect to the maritime provinces and with respect to Newfoundland. The maritime provinces and Newfoundland have returned for a second round. Both parties have justified what they have done with the money in the first round. I will indicate what they will want to do in the second round, though we still have to find the money. It is the question of money again. However, this is where we are at now. It is in the famous envelope stage with which my hon. friend is familiar.
December 4, 1980

Again, this highway reinforcement program should be seen in the light of broader Newfoundland transportation interests. This is where we refer to the Sullivan report and to present negotiations presently going on. If there is one thing on which I will not stand too much chastisement, it is on this subject. I indicated my interests very early in the game. Since then, delays have not been caused by me or by my department. The delays have been caused either by circumstances or by the government of Newfoundland.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but unless there is unanimous consent, his allotted time has now expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Denis Éthier: I recognize the hon. member for Capilano.
Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Capilano. I should have recognized an hon. member to my right. With the hon. member's permission, I will recognize him after I have recognized the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Huntington:: You have my permission, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bujold:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the debate this evening and especially to have the opportunity to question the minister and perhaps also to make some suggestions and criticisms which are meant to be constructive. I hope that by making some suggestions and criticisms which are not necessarily aimed at the minister or at his officials but rather at the unwieldiness of that large department which has to deal with problems throughout the country, he should necessarily find some solutions.
And it reminds me that last night the minister referred specifically to the problems in his department. And he said very eloquently that time and patience are more productive than strength and frenzy. However, 1 would tell him that with too many scruples we would never have accomplished anything. 1 heard him this afternoon repeat to my colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster) that he understood his frustration and that of his colleagues. Last evening he spoke about the frustration of civil servants. I agree with him that there is surely some frustration within the department but I only want to point out to him a certain difference which exists among the public servants, some very able individuals who are aware of the issues and are working for the common good but it is merely that such a difference exists only at 5.30 or at 6 p.m. When civil servants go back home, they do not have to return to their constituencies or to travel across the country to face
Supply
the electors who also feel frustrated when they see how slow the decision-making process is. Sometimes all they know about is their local administration or their local problems. People find it hard to understand why decisions are not made more quickly.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, that is the big difference for civil servants who are extremely competent men and women, who know their files. That is the big difference. I should like to tell about a little incident I experienced in 1978, when the former minister, Mr. Otto Lang, sent to the Magdalen Islands a civil servant from headquarters in Ottawa to become acquainted with the problems first hand. That civil servant had to face a blockade in Gaspe, to be more precise. The people there blocked the aircraft on the runway, with the civil servants and the people representing the government aboard. The civil servant came back and reported that he simply could not have imagined that the problem was as serious as it was in fact.
So, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I could perhaps deal with two points my hon. colleague from Laprairie brought up yesterday, to make some contribution and tell the House how I see them, namely, the problems of regional carriers and Nor-dair. With regard to regional carriers, I see the minister spoke to the problem again today, saying how eager he was to solve it; according to the newspapers in the last two days or so, the department is about to submit to cabinet a policy on the matter.
I should like to point out to the minister the extreme importance of reunification and the need to have a coherent policy in the field of regional carriers. In an area of the country such as eastern Quebec or eastern Canada, it is imperative that there be some correlation between the various regional carriers.
In vast areas that are sparsely populated, regional carriers are needed that can co-ordinate the means of air transport. At the present time, eastern Canada has three regional carriers. Now, when one has to cover as short a distance as 200 miles, and yet has to change carrier three times, to deal with the three airlines that serve the area, how can there be co-ordination or correlation between the three? I am sure the minister, to whom I addressed the question, will bear in mind those extremely important problems when he discusses his policy with the regional carriers.
With regard to the Nordair problem, colleagues have spoken about it even as recently as this afternoon. Our hon. colleague from Joliette mentioned it. Our hon. colleague from Montreal did so as well. Obviously, a decision will have to be made soon. The minister is perfectly aware of it. In his answer this afternoon, he pointed it out very clearly, but I find it hard to understand why there should be concern about the possibility for Quebec interests to be major shareholders in the company that might possibly take over Quebecair or Nordair? Why create problems, why ask questions about the fact that the people of Quebec, with other parties, even possibly from

December 4, 1980
Supply
Ontario, and Air Canada, should hold at least 50 per cent of the shares of the company that would eventually become the main regional air carrier in eastern Canada? I fail to understand that fear. Obviously, as pointed out so eloquently by my hon. colleague from Laprairie, if the shares were split 40-4020, with the 20 going to Air Canada, with Ontario interest, for instance, Air Canada would still hold extraordinary powers over the future company that is in the process of being created. 1 therefore beg the minister to take into consideration these facts and to act in such a manner that nothing serious, nothing disgracious for the Canadian government happens at the present time and to act in such a manner that a company with its headquarters in Montreal, with a majority of Quebeckers as shareholders, will retain at least 50 per cent of the shares of a company which would make a bid for the purchase of Quebe-cair and Nordair.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to another extremely important problem for our region, in eastern Quebec and in eastern Canada and it has a little to do with the administrtion of Transport Canada. You are aware, Mr. Chairman, of the fact that I represent a riding that encompasses the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, this little group of islands located right in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence where we must face two levels of administration be it in the field of air, sea or rail transportation, namely the Quebec regional administration and the Atlantic regional administration.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you can imagine the kinds of problems we must face when we discuss a particular problem and have to deal with two separate administrations. When I am in the Magdalen Islands discussing the harbour in Cap-aux-Meules with CTMA, which operates the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the province of Quebec, they tell me: Of course, in Cap-aux-Meules a Quebec company operates the service but its administration comes under the Atlantic region with regards to the seaport. So I must try to get explanations from two administrations. It is easy to imagine the communication problems that exist when two directors general must meet to discuss certain things. That requires a great deal more time, and despite the good will shown by Department of Transport officers, it can take months before discussions can begin.
1 would be grateful if the minister would consider, whenever it is administratively feasible, to give back to Quebec, to the Quebec region the administration of those small centres which pose no problem. For example, the harbour in Cap-aux-Meules or in Havre-Aubert, in the Magdalen Islands could come under the Quebec region. I see no reason why the administration of those two seaports could not be transferred to the Quebec region.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch upon another issue which is of great importance in our region, and the minister will no doubt appreciate the problems this can cause for the people in our area; I am speaking of intermodal public transportation. In eastern Quebec and eastern Canada in general there are three main means of transport: the airplanes, the railways and Voyageur bus in Quebec and other bus companies in eastern Canada.
Because of our weather, one can leave Quebec City in the morning under bright sunshine and get into Rimouski under cloudy skies and finally arrive in Gaspe in a snowstorm. If someone flies from Montreal, he or she can be told in Rimouski that he or she cannot go any further, that a snowstorm has fored the airport in Gaspe to close down. But, if there was such a thing as intermodal transportation, the traveller could hop on the bus or the train. But no, Mr. Chairman, the plane from Montreal or Quebec City arrives in Rimouski at 9.35 a.m., the bus left at 6.10 a.m. and the train at 5.20 a.m. so the only thing that person can do is rent a car and continue his or her journey.
However, Mr. Chairman, if we had intermodal transportation, that person could get there by plane then, a half hour later, take a train or a bus and continue on towards eastern Canada into the maritimes or to Gaspe. The same applies to the return leg from Gaspe to Montreal. The plane flies out of Mont-Joli at 9.15 p.m.; the Gaspe-Quebec City bus gets into Mont-Joli at 10.49 and the train coming from eastern Canada and the Gaspe peninsula goes by at 1.15 a.m. This means that once again we have three transport companies serving the same area where the temperature can change very quickly, where small towns are strung along the coast of the Chaleur Bay, both on the New Brunswick side and the Quebec side, where the population is scattered among those towns and where three companies are fighting for customers who have the means to travel. It is extremely important for the Department of Transport to discuss with these three companies, two of which are private companies, namely Voyageur and an airline, and another which is the Crown corporation VIA Rail. All of them should sit down at the same table to determine whether they can arrange their schedules so that people can take the bus and transfer to the train or board an airplane.
At the present time, those three companies are fighting to get the greatest number of customers that they can among an extremely sparse population, since there are only 120,000 inhabitants in the 600 miles around the Gaspe peninsula. These three companies now have deficits in this area and are constantly fighting to get more passengers.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the minister and his department will be able to study this whole issue. I know that there are certain firms which would ask nothing better than to co-ordinate the schedules of these companies. We could have plane service from Quebec City, for instance, to Mont-Joli, and then take either the train or the bus from Mont-Joli to Gaspe.
Mr. Chairman, this brings me to a third matter which is closely related to the two others, namely, the railway problem.
December 4, 1980

Last summer, a study was made concerning the Gaspe area which clearly shows the importance of transport in our region. As I said earlier, we have a population of 120,000, but the number of people from Gaspe who live elsewhere is much larger. These are people who come and go often, and they need some means of transport. This study made last summer shows that 69.5 per cent of these people travel by car. And heaven knows the great distances we have to cover! In view of all the problems caused by the price of gasoline, which will increase even more in the future, we have to think about developing some type of public transport to solve this problem, which brings me to the train service. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote some extremely revealing figures. At the present time, a round trip from Gaspe to Rimouski over a distance of 310 miles costs $138.25 by car and $30 by train. A round trip from Gaspe to Quebec City over a distance of 490 miles costs $218.54 by car and only $46 by train. The trip from Gaspe to Montreal, which some people make regularly every weekend because the people in our area are not afraid of covering great distances by car in spite of the weather, this trip of 600 miles costs $390 by car. By train, it costs only $50 for the round trip.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am saying to the Minister of Transport how important the train can be in an area where, as I said before, the majority or most of the people in the Gaspe peninsula have relatives or friends living in Quebec City, Montreal or Toronto. These people badly need a low cost means of transport they could use during the Christmas holiday or the summer vacation either to go back home or to visit their relatives outside the area. That means finally how extremely important it has now become to provide these people with a means of transport they could benefit from.
So, Mr. Chairman, we in the Gaspe peninsula have a train which leaves Halifax in the morning and arrives in Montreal the morning after and this train links with a sideline at Campbellton for the people coming from the bay.
As I was saying a while ago, maybe we should ask our officials, or our minister, if he has time for that, to leave Gaspe at four o'clock in the afternoon-and I do not know if the minister has young children-and arrive in Campbellton in the evening, after managing to put his three or four kids to sleep around 9.30 or 8.30 so that when he arrives at Campbellton at 10.15 he must then wake the whole brood up and change to another train. And again you have to spend so many hours to put them back to sleep again, while they are bothering the father and the mother who are in turn upsetting all the other train passengers. That is what we do, Mr. Chairman. We the representatives of this area have to live through that each time we go to our constituency. I wish our officials could go through this routine for although they are conscientious persons they unfortunately do not always have time for such experiences.
Let them come to see us with their families, let them visit our beautiful area, and by the way let them take that train.
Supply
During the winter, even during snow storms you have to wake the kids and change trains at 10.30 in the evening. There is not even a light at the station. I invite them to try the experience. This is what the people in eastern Quebec, the people in the Gaspe peninsula must put up with every day.
The frustration of certain colleagues referred to by the minister, it is the frustration of the people in our areas. When we go back home and meet our constituents, when we attend political or social events in the area, this is the constant complaint we hear. How can we help sharing that frustration?
Speaking of that train, and the two administrations I referred to earlier-the Atlantic region and the Quebec region with a train leaving Montreal in the evening for the Atlantic region-why not have one or two trains only? One could serve all of eastern Canada, the other could go to Gaspe. This way we could avoid the Campbellton connection, a serious deception for people who have to use the train.
Mr. Chairman, with the figures I referred to earlier, do you know who takes the train in an area such as ours? It is the people most in need, those who have a minimum of opportunity to travel by other means. Families boarding the train cannot afford to take the bus let alone the plane. They are the people who have the least, who can hardly make ends meet, who fortunately once or twice a year can come to Montreal and visit relatives who were forced to leave the Gaspe peninsula or other jobless areas of the country, and who must put up with those annoyances. Those are the same people, Mr. Chairman, who each time we meet them tell us how frustrated they feel when they realize the government that is supposed to look after their interests cannot solve their problem.
Those were the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Riis:: Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. 1 must say it is a real pleasure and a real opportunity to stand before the Committee of the Whole to address this topic of transportation. It is a topic in Canadian history which has been fundamental to the success and to the development and certainly will be to the future of Canada, starting from the early canoe routes across the country, followed by the canals, the railways, the air services throughout the north and more recently by the ships connecting Canada to the rest of the world. Indeed, transportation has been a factor that has welded this very diverse and varied country together.
Transportation is an integral element of Canadian development. When we consider the tremendous costs associated with transportation development and the very high cost connected with infrastructure development within Canada, we are encouraged to ask where we should be spending our money. Should we be spending it in the more depressed areas of
5368

December 4, 1980
Supply
Canada which are experiencing economic recession? Should we be spending it in the parts of Canada where development is neutral and where growth is minimal or perhaps static? Or should we be spending it in areas of Canada which are recognized as growth areas in our economy where sound economic development is accelerating on a daily and weekly basis?
I want to paint a picture of a part of Canada for the Minister of Transport. I recognize that British Columbia and western Canada are experiencing some of the lowest levels of unemployment in the country. We are generating the highest rates of real growth in all of Canada. British Columbia and western Canada are increasingly attracting labour from all regions of Canada.
We are experiencing high rates of investment in new productive capacity in British Columbia. This year investment is up by more than 16 per cent over the corresponding period last year. In western Canada and British Columbia we are experiencing tourist growth the like of which we have never experienced before. The total number of United States vehicles entering British Columbia is up by more than 30 per cent over the past year. Rogers Pass westbound traffic is up this year 14 per cent, indicating that the number of visitors from central Canada and the prairies is increasing. Of course, there is increased traffic on the Yellowhead highway. This very crucial route is often referred to now as the "route to the resources", and traffic on it is certainly up from the corresponding period last year.
Within the Kamloops-Shuswap area itself, economic growth in 1981 will unquestionably be higher than the national average. Population is growing, and there are major new developments as a result of the major newly-found copper deposits in the Kamloops-Shuswap region. The growth of the region is illustrated by the following: the value of building permits issued in Kamloops during the first ten months of this year totals in excess of $72 million compared with $34 million in the same period last year, an increase of over 100 per cent.
In the Salmon Arm area, the centre of the Shuswap area of British Columbia, the value of building permits jumped to in excess of $11 million in the first ten months of 1980 compared with $5 million in the same period last year, an increase of well over 130 per cent.
Retailing is the second largest industry in the Kamloops-Shuswap area and, as in most other parts of Canada the great majority of retail stores are small, independently owned and operated enterprises. The strength of this sector in my riding reflects what is happening throughout the west. In the 12 months ending June, 1980, retail sales in Kamloops totalled $5,245 per capita compared with the national of $3,596 per capita. By 1985, per capita expenditures in Kamloops will likely reach $8,200. This buoyant local and regional economy provides a confident environment for the establishment of new business. So far this year 770 new business licences have been issued in Kamloops and 160 in the Salmon Arm area.
The conclusion to be drawn from the picture I have painted is that a very strong local and regional economy exists in this area of central British Columbia. Yet the transportation infrastructure which is so crucial to continued development is lacking.
Back in 1969, for example, the Kamloops airport served fewer than 100,000 passengers and experienced what was at that time referred to as a major expansion. A new coffee shop was added and a few additional feet to a lobby space. Then in 1975 there was a proposal by the government for a major expansion. In 1979 the number of passengers served was in excess of 200,000. In 1980 another significant expansion occurred at the airport. An addition was made to the baggagehandling rack. Expansion has always been promised but always put off. Expansion never took place. On July 28 I received a letter from the Minister of Transport indicating that expansion of the Kamloops airport facility had been postponed again until 1983.
Let us recognize that we are talking about a part of the province of British Columbia which is experiencing tremendous growth. Access to the area and the opportunity to leave the area for business purposes and for moving labour in and out has become crucial, yet the facility which existed in the sixties remains in place unchanged. We need an airport which can handle more traffic. We need an airport which is dependable under varying weather conditions. We need an airport which can provide an adequate and acceptable level of service. We heard earlier today about problems associated with Mirabel and the tremendous sums which have gone into the Mirabel airport near Montreal. Yet the returns are somewhat questionable. One has to ask whether it is unreasonable to request that a few dollars be spent to expand and improve the terminal facility in this dynamic part of the country and to invest in the economic development of that area.
Is an improved terminal and improved landing facilities to allow access to the airport under inversion layer atmospheric conditions too much to ask? Can we ask the minister to reconsider the decision to hold off any expansion to that airport until 1983? I will put the question to the Minister of Transport: Can we ask for an acceleration? Can that date be moved up to one more acceptable to the people and the entrepreneurs of that area?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to thank the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap for the very encouraging picture of his area he painted for us. Economic growth is advancing there, and that certainly reflects the need for good transportation facilities.
Since the program to upgrade the Kamloops airport is deferred to 1983, his question is whether it can be brought forward. Well, it is not in this particular budget. In 1978 we
December 4, 1980

spent $37,000 on a garage, and $44,000 on runway stabilization. In 1979 we spent $205,000 acquiring some land. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap drew attention to the need for specific improvements to the terminal and to runway facilities.
Members of the Chamber of Commerce from Kamloops appeared here in delegation and pointed out that the inverted fog layer which exists over the airport prevents aircraft from landing at Kamloops-they must carry on to another airfield because of the level of the present runway. They even went so far as to suggest that Kamloops needs a whole new airport at another level which would not be subject to that kind of influence from the atmospheric buildup over Kamloops.
Some hon. members have several airports in their ridings, and individual members come to the Ministry of Transport saying that conditions at their airports warrant higher priority than others and asking that improvements at theirs be advanced. At this stage there are no reserves to include Kamloops in this year's budget, but I am sure the minister and his officials are willing to look at the hon. member's proposal to see whether there is any possibility of taking his submission into account when preparing the next budget-and they look forward to doing that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those remarks, and I certainly encourage a re-examination of the priority and the timing of the expansion of that airport, in recognition, perhaps, that it is time to be investing more money in airports. Such investments would perhaps result in more money flowing back to the Canadian government than investments in other locations at this time.
Speaking along the same line, we recognize that the centre of economic gravity is moving to the western provinces. Alberta and British Columbia are becoming more important all the time in terms of the country's economic development. The Yellowhead highway is a major interprovincial route, increasing in importance, and sometimes called Canada's road to the resources. It links up the Pacific coast to northern Alberta particularly. The daily traffic counts on that highway are now higher than on corresponding sections of the Trans-Canada highway. One of the major uses of the Yellowhead route is for heavy industrial traffic in recognition of the industrial development which is taking place in the western provinces. Would the minister comment for a moment on whether or not he sees any possible cost-sharing program to provide for present and, perhaps more important, for future needs, from the $4 billion western development fund to encourage the improvement and development of this crucial highway system?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, may 1 say to the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap that I had the opportunity of assisting at the Yellowhead highway convention in Saskatoon about a month ago. The problem stems from highway improvement programs which were based on cost-sharing with the four western provinces. Some of these agreements were signed earlier; they were five-year programs. I do not remem-
Supply
ber the particular ones which were started in 1975 and which terminate in 1980, but there are some that have a couple of years to go. It is relevant to me that under a federal-provincial agreement, the provinces take their allocation and decide to apply it to highways which have priority in their mind. As they have not applied these funds to the Yellowhead highway, they are now hoping that the government will see it as a parallel to the number one Trans-Canada highway to the south. They put forward many arguments, they produce figures regarding the volume of traffic and other statistics, but it is a matter which has to be negotiated between the provinces, the ministers of transport of the provinces, and the federal government. When a certain program has expired and there is no allocation in the budget of additional funds for such a program, special legislation or supplementary dollars would be required in order to arrive at such an agreement with the provincial counterparts as is suggested. I do not believe the western incentive program was designed to be applied to highway programs.
When I went to the convention, I had a list of the moneys which had been made available. When I met the B.C. minister, he said to me, "You have only given us $8 million for our highway. You should have given us a lot more." That is the type of demand the Ministry of Transport receives from all the provinces. If I may digress for a moment, let me point out that one usually sees a big sign saying, "This is a provincial highway program". And on the bottom of the sign it says, "A little bit of it was funded by the federal government."


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his response. I would say, if that is what it would take to get funding for such a highway system to provide better economic opportunities to that part of Canada, I would be quite prepared to see the federal government take the top part of that sign and put it in neon lights every few hundred yards along the highway. That would be fine with me if it encouraged the federal government to provide that kind of funding. I would ask, however, that consideration be given to investing money in highway systems which would guarantee returns to the Canadian government.
I want to refer now, Mr. Chairman, to a point which was introduced earlier by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond regarding the cutbacks in the express stations particularly along the CN rail. I think one would recognize the problem clearly if one saw it in the context of the lay-offs by CN and CP over the last 20 years which have resulted in something like 60,000 positions being cut back. As a result of the decision to reduce the CN express service, we have seen a loss of about 1,100 jobs across the country, affecting places such as Kamloops, Kelowna, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Terrace, and Smithers. A similar situation has arisen in other regions of Canada. In some parts of the country this has resulted in a complete lack of express service by railroad or by highway and dependence upon very expensive air services. I wonder, if the effect of this move has been considered, what kind of impact it will have on the small community.
I would like to give one example of a small business which received a support grant from the federal government of

December 4, 1980
Supply
$150,000 to open up a modern pottery factory exporting goods out of the region. It depended upon the freight rates established for CN express service. When this service was eliminated, the cost of freight of the goods in and out of this centre doubled, which made it impossible for the entrepreneur to compete with the national and multinational firms throughout the region. As a result, we saw another bankruptcy, another small business caving in because of the cutback in the express service.
We see a cutback in rail transportation jobs. I understand that earlier the minister indicated that perhaps 90 per cent of these positions would not be lost, that individuals would be moved into other parts of the rail service. But I would like to ask him whether there is a need to continue the phasing out of this service, particularly during these crucial energy times when it is recognized that to move goods by truck costs four times as much in terms of energy per freight mile as it does by rail. To me this does not necessarily seem the most logical progression when we are concerned about the conservation of energy. Also, I should like to remind the minister that section 262 of the Railway Act compels the railway by law to handle all traffic offered for carriage, which means the government can step in and require that the express service be maintained throughout ail parts of Canada.
Will the minister explain why this absurd cutback is occurring which is costing Canadians jobs, service, and, perhaps most important of all, jobs in businesses which will fold as a result of increased transportation costs because of this particular decision?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, may I say in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap that I believe his area is served by CN express, is it not?


Nelson Andrew Riis: By CN and CP.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: It is not the desire of the department to cut back on services or to elimitate a service. It is simply that CN has been losing $53 million a year in its express operations because in many areas CN is facing competition from other operators. To use an example, in Amherst, Nova Scotia, when CN speaks of cutting out its services, it is reported that 12 private contractors are willing to take on the job and replace them in providing that service. Essentially it is a lack in the traffic volume or the high cost of operating the express services traditionally provided by the railways.
The hon. member gives the example of a pottery firm. His colleague, the hon. member for Regina West-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the time allotted to both members has expired.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity to question the minister through you, Mr. Chairman. I was fascinated by the minister's answer to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West when he said, "money, money, money". The minister talked about the
brown envelope question which was introduced by this side. It is very interesting how easy it is for the government to find $28,400,000 for propaganda purposes just like that; it is not even in the estimates. The excuse the minister gave the hon. member for St. John's West that there is not money is just hogwash.
Also I was fascinated with the minister's answer on JETS, the radar problem or dilemma in Canada. I was told by officers of the Air Traffic Controllers Association that the JETS system is approximately eight years old and is completely obsolete. There is one installation in Moncton, and now it is planned to instal others across Canada over the next three years. Updated systems are already in place in the United States. JETS are computer simulators which predict by calculation where aircraft will be, and now there is a system of live definition of where aircraft will be. JETS are obsolete, yet they are continuing to spend millions of dollars on them. The system is so obsolete that it cannot even transfer aircraft from one zone to another in Canada.
The executive of the Air Traffic Controllers Association of Canada has invited industry representatives to luncheons so that they might understand the problem the association is having with the Department of Transport. I appeal to the minister to invite the executive to lunch so that he will hear the same lecture they are giving to industry representatives throughout the land. The minister should not lecture them; he should listen, because they have an interesting and valuable story about how our aircraft communication can be first class. It is ridiculous to continue to spend money on an obsolete system.
I should also like to question the minister about the government's offshore sickness. It seems everything is in place to serve interests offshore rather than Canadian or domestic ones. For example, the matter of tax treaties and banks lending subsidiaries of foreign corporations money from Canada was raised in the House. The interest on this money comes back into Canada tax free through various wrinkles of the Canadian government tax treaty. One matter which pertains to the minister's responsibility is the 25 per cent of one one hundred and twentieth of duty and taxes paid on dredging and other marine equipment on an as-used basis. If a Canadian corporation builds or owns a Canadian dredge, it pays all its duties and taxes up front in cash, or "baby, you just don't get it". But we allow foreigners to come in and pay 25 per cent of one-one hundred and twentieth of duty payable over a ten-year basis and on an as-used basis. How can Canadian plants compete with that gimmick?
There are foreign dredges in the country. Our own Canadian dredging plant capacity is utilized only 20 per cent. The capital is sitting with an interest burden building upon it, yet there are gimmicks which allow foreigners a preferred status. There are three foreign dredges working in the Arctic with live-aboard crews. There is tokenism. They bring four or five Canadians up to these dredges to learn the foreign technology,
December 4, 1980

but they are not allowed to touch one thing. They are nothing but deckhands. As a matter of fact, the minister might talk to a couple of them who have quit because they would not put up with it. The wages of the foreign crews are not subject to income tax. They are advanced money for expenses, little trips and holidays, but their wages are paid at home. What is happening to the country? Where are we in terms of common-sense? They are working against Canadian marine unions, and there is correspondence on file from the unions complaining about it.
I should like to refer to Mount St. Helens in Washington which blew its top. Great, massive quantities of mud came down and filled the river systems there. We saw tragic motion pictures of fish dying in the heat of the water. There was a national emergency on the west coast of the United States, and the U.S. government called for all the dredges it could get. They were brought in from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach on the west coast, from the gulf and even from the east to handle this national emergency. At that time there was dredging equipment in British Columbia which was not being used. It was available; it was absolutely ideal to bail the mud out of these rivers in Washington. But, the Jones act of the United States would not allow the use of any of that equipment, so the emergency situation did not provide any revenue to Canadian companies.
Moving from that situation on the west coast and the protectionism of the United States to the Miramichi bids which opened on December 3, I should like to indicate that four out of the five bids were foreign ones. Apparently a brand new company called Ledin is the low bidder. If a person in the dredging business was asked about the company, he would not have heard of it; it is a new company, and no one has ever heard of it. The low bid this year is $1 million higher than the Canadian bid of last year, but I am told by a responsible official that the bid is based on the leasing of a United States dredge. So, the United States piece of equipment will come here and take work away from a Canadian plant which is working at only 20 per cent capacity. I understand the dredge is being leased from Great Lakes Dredge and Docks Company.
What are we doing to ourselves? Let me deal with Roberts Bank which is close to my home. Canada has entered into coal contracts with Japan, but we do not have in place the dock capacity on the west coast to fulfil the coal and delivery contracts with that country. If there had not been a depression or a recession in the Japanese steel industry, we would have been called on for lack of delivery. We desperately need a second pad at Roberts Bank. This has been known for some years. It would put in place enough capacity in order to handle the contracts that already exist, yet it is not done. It was almost arranged and in progress a year ago, but what troubles me is that Canadian companies do not have the inside track. Who has the inside track on Roberts Bank? It is a foreign company. Somewhere in the system the definition and the terms for dredging contracts are such that Canadian dredging companies just cannot do the job within the time-frame set.
Supply
This is absolute insanity. What is the matter? Canadian equipment and crews are available. All of a sudden a design turns to a contract and our equipment is not big enough; only a foreign company from Holland can do the job. Is that not interesting?
I have in my possession one of the most amazing telegrams I have ever read. If the minister doubts me, let him listen. This telegram was received on December 3 from Holland. It is addressed to Sceptre Dredge and it is entitled "Subject- Vancouver, Roberts Bank Tender for Dredging and Reclamation". It is from Amstelveen, Amsterdam Ballast Dredging, a division of Ballast-Nedam Groep. That is the largest group of dredging operators, I guess, in the world. It says:
Amsterdam Ballast Dredging, a division of Ballast-Nedam Groep, N.V. is interested in establishing a suitable partnership to execute the above works.
Can you imagine the audacity of this?
It is our intention to carry out all or (of) the major part of the dredging and reclamation works and whereby your share would be the slope protection and servicing works.
Isn't that nice, Mr. Chairman? A foreign company says it is their intention to do the major part of the dredging work and "your share would be . . ." Mr. Minister, what the heck is going on in this country?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Who is advising the minister?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The telegram continues:
Please advise us of our willingness to co-operate either on a joint venture or on subcontractor status, preferably by phone-
And the phone numbers are listed. It goes on:
-or by return telex. We are primarily interested in the alternatives to complete the dredging in one season.
Isn't that fascinating? We had to go and set the terms for a big dredging contract to get a great big turning circle inside for the ships to turn around in so that we could dredge up three or four new pads. The turning circle on the inside basin was the reasoning behind that.
The secondary reason was that no Canadian company could do this within the limited time-frame the Department of the Environment set down since they say the dredging shall be done between this period and that period otherwise the crabs will get hurt. I am also told that the crabgrass they are trying to protect started to grow after the first dredging. Perhaps it is time we looked at some of these applied biologists and began to apply some common sense in terms of the total picture before us.
The point I am making is really an appeal: what the heck is going on? There are many Canadian dredging companies for the Arctic, Roberts Bank and Miramichi, yet we get into deals like this where somehow or other outsiders have the inside track, where they can make requests of Canadian companies such as this. I think something is very wrong.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It smells fishy, too.

December 4, 1980
Supply


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I would like the minister to answer these questions. What are we to do about dredging in the Arctic? Why cannot Canadian equipment be used in the Arctic? Why must we have foreign crews aboard who are not paying their full share of taxes? How long do you think the Canadian maritime unions are willing to put up with this kind of nonsense? We have all this unemployment. We know what our needs are. We are dredging knowledge, yet find it taken over by foreigners. We are talking about the heart of a serious problem, a serious lack of communication between the department and the Canadian public at large.
Before I go on to the next subject I would like the minister to answer those questions.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the first-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I wonder if the minister could answer these questions. He is here and I do not think he should have his parliamentary secretary answer for him.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I see the minister is rising, now, to the satisfaction of the hon. member.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, it was a matter of dividing the job between my parliamentary secretary and myself. I was going to speak after he was finished. He was to answer the first part of the hon. member's comments.


Erik Nielsen: He is here and he is responsible.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the subject of contracting, and in particular contracting abroad, I want to emphasize that the hon. member took a one-sided approach to this thing. For example, he neglected all kinds of nuances. There is no doubt that allowing foreigners to contract in Canada on dredging has some good consequences. First of all, as to the lower cost and in providing more competition, obviously. I could quote chapter and verse with respect to that. Also, there are instances where the equipment is not available in Canada. There are situations where the equipment is not suitable.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Who fed you that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are all kinds of situations which really do exist-


J. Michael Forrestall: You be careful how you respond to this.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 am simply expressing that there are two sides.


J. Michael Forrestall: Of course there are two sides. You had better be very direct and honest with the Canadian Seafarers in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am simply making the point, and I will repeat it, that this is a two-sided story. When you close your bidding to foreign companies you may very well create problems for
yourself, for example, in terms of competition on cases other than the one in which you are involved at the particular moment. I could give examples of that. It is not as black and white as has been presented here tonight.


Donald W. Munro: It is pretty muddy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to the subject of the importation of dredges, I do not know if I understand the argument very well. I did take note of it. I do not know if I understand what the hon. member for Capilano said about the foreign importer only having to pay one-twentieth of the 25 per cent duty each month he has his equipment in place.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Twenty-five per cent of one-one hundred and twentieth of duty and tax payable.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. Either we hear from the minister or we hear from the member for Capilano.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I would like him to have the facts.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was trying to answer to the best of my capacity. What I understand is that he must pay one-twentieth of 25 per cent duty each month he has his equipment in place. The hon. member says that if a Canadian was to do that he would have to put 25 per cent up front. Is that it?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He pays his duty and taxes up front on his own equipment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My understanding is that he is in exactly the same situation. If he imports the foreign dredge he would be in exactly the same situation as a foreigner would be.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: What about Canadian equipment? How will you encourage the use of Canadian equipment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not have that here and I will try to decipher it further. This does not seem to be the great injustice the hon. member is referring to.
I am impressed by some of the things the member for Capilano has said and I will certainly give that a lot of attention. I have already done this. I have suggested to the chairman of the National Harbours Board that Canadian dredging companies should be accommodated. I also expressed a wish that if foreigners were to be retained they should enter in consortia with Canadian dredging companies. I was told this might lead to difficult situations. I understand other people have said that the way for Canada to make the best of these situations is for the Canadian government to buy the equipment and then lend it back to the dredging companies.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a long-term solution to tomorrow's problem.


Denis Éthier: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am impressed by the argument-
December 4, 1980


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but the time allotted to both members has expired.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the minister is woefully ignorant of the point or he cannot answer the-


Denis Éthier: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -very legitimate questions put by the hon. member for Capilano.


Denis Éthier: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: 1 am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Denis Éthier: 1 have listened to a few words of the point of order and I fail to see a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I am rising on a point or order. The point of order is that the government in such an exercise is responsible to account to hon. members for their estimates. That is not happening because the minister has not informed himself or his officials have not informed him.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The hon. member might not be satisfied with the answer he received, but I see no point of order in that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, you have not even heard the point of order, so how can you make a judgment?


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Chairman, once again, I am pleased to take part in this exercise. I think it is one of the better functions of the House of Commons. I certainly associate myself with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain in praising this particular exercise. It seems to me the people of this country who are interested and who are watching the proceedings on television are seeing the House in one of its better moments. It is a good deal better than the question period, which is really a case of one-upmanship. In this exercise we get down to business, and individual members put national and local interests in front of the minister and receive replies.
I am pleased with the replies of the minister, both throughout today and yesterday. Transport is probably the most difficult department in any government and certainly in the government of Canada. It deals with a very large number of issues and a great deal of diversity, all of which makes it extremely difficult for the minister. In the few months in which the minister has held this portfolio, he has handled the problems extremely well. It may be very trite to say that transportation is of vital importance to Canada, but it is important to remind Canadians, again and again, of the importance of the industry.
There is probably no other country in which transportation is so important and so complex. I challenge anybody to name a
Supply
country in the world in which transportation is as complex for a population of 25 million. The distances are great and there are all kinds of regional problems. A sophisticated transportation system is necessary to link those regions which are interdependent, if not totally dependent on such links. Canada has a high growth, sophisticated economy and there is a high volume of goods and service equipment moving across the country.
On a per capita basis no country in the world has as much export trade as Canada. Certainly, we are the world's number one exporting country. When I refer to transportation on a national plane, I am also thinking of my own community because it is one of the few constituencies where the national interest almost invariably applies directly to the constituency. So when I talk about transportation in Thunder Bay, I am usually talking about a key national interest, because that community is key to the whole movement of goods and services in this country.
Thunder Bay is located almost at the centre of the country geographically or, as we say, at the heart of the country. The distances to other parts of the country from Thunder Bay are very great. Without a doubt, that community is the largest exporting community on a per capita basis in Canada. No other community has the export trade in grain, pulp and paper, transportation of equipment and so on, at least on a per capita basis. This year was a record year for the port of Thunder Bay in the movement of grain. It was probably the greatest amount of grain moved through any port in the history of mankind in one year. It is a vital port in the movement of goods and services throughout Canada.
I would like to cite some of the problems which I foresee for Thunder Bay. The port came very close to its capacity this year. The Lakehead transportation study, which was part of the Central Access study of three or four years ago, said that Thunder Bay would not reach capacity for 20 years. But three years or four years hence we have already come very close to that capacity.
It is important that we begin to devote attention to Thunder Bay. One must not forget that almost two-thirds of all Canadian grain moves through it, and will continue to do so. We must begin to look at ways in which we can improve the situation if, indeed, we are coming close to capacity. I refer hon. members to a comment which was made by Doug Radke, the deputy co-ordinator and the acting co-ordinator at present of the Federal Grain Transportation Authority in the Montreal Gazette on October 7. He says there are problems with regard to turn-around time and sorting out trains in Thunder Bay and that action must be taken to improve the situation. He goes on to say that the turn-around time for most grain trains is approximately 14 days to 16 days, and comments:
Reducing Thunder Bay's turn-around time is as good as adding more hopper cars to the system,. .. For instance, a 15 per cent reduction in the port's turn-around time would represent the same boost in grain shipping capacity as the addition of 4,000 hopper cars by 1985.

December 4, 1980
Supply
He goes on to explain in this article why Thunder Bay is not as efficient as it should be and how it can become more efficient.
I presented to the minister earlier this year a proposal designed to improve the movement of grain. I did not ask the minister for more money. I was suggesting that if the government intended to spend $1 billion on hopper cars and other items, it should look at spending $30 million at Thunder Bay as a better alternative. And Mr. Radke, three or four months later, supports me in this particular article.
The proposal which I made in the spring, Mr. Chairman, has been reviewed again. Comments have been received, some of which were adverse, from the department and from the grain companies. We are now looking at another proposal which we think will achieve some of the same results-perhaps it is a better proposal. This new proposal tries to solve the same problems as were outlined in the other, and it deals with the fact that most of the shunting by CPR is done on the main line. We went back to a proposal brought forward by CPR in 1969 or 1970 when it acquired land to the west of the city in order to build a yard so that the movement of grain and other goods could be improved. I bring this subject to the attention of the minister with the idea in mind that in the next two or three months a new proposal will be presented, and we hope it will receive very close attention.
As Mr. Radke says, a 15 per cent improvement in turnaround in Thunder Bay is as good as 4,000 hopper cars. We believe this would cost $30 million or $40 million, whereas
4,000	hopper cars would cost many times that amount. The community of Thunder Bay has become far more aware of its potential as a major port. It has set up a civic transportation committee to study these matters, and we hope we will be able to have the support and attention of the minister, with the idea that someone will appear before the committee or become part of that committee in the near future as we consider these larger problems.
We are also concerned about the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The transport committee had a meeting with Mr. Turner in Regina in September and it was very interesting. He put it to us that one of the problems the grain industry was really concerned about was the future of the Seaway. This was the line of reasoning that was used: They said, "Look, the Americans are going to increase their grain shipments and their exports in other areas very, very considerably, and their Mississippi waterway system is operating nearly at capacity. They are going to require much more of the Seaway. We will have to increase our tonnage through the Seaway considerably, particularly of grain; also, as energy problems develop, far more coal and other goods will he shipped, and so the pressure on the seaway will be very considerable."
The key problems are, I think, twofold: one is the Welland Canal, which is a bottleneck. I know the ministry is looking very carefully at this because we have had testimony to this effect in committee. The other problem is, of course, that we
must keep the system competitive; Seaway costs cannot be allowed to grow any more than the market will bear. Those are two very significant concerns the grain industry has and which I share as a member interested in the movement of grain, along with our community of Thunder Bay.
In the two or three minutes I have left before I ask the minister to respond, I would like to say something pleasant about VIA Rail because so much is said about VIA Rail that is unpleasant. I think a lot of it is said by people who just do not use the service. I have had occasion in the last couple of months to use the Transcontinental and the Ottawa to Toronto rail service three or four times, and I have been very pleased with the improvement in the service. There is no doubt in my mind that we made the right move when we took the two major railways in this country out of passenger service and put the project into the hands of people who wanted to run a passenger service, and whose business is running a passenger service. I can tell you that the attitude, the cleanliness, the whole approach to the service shows great improvement.
Now, there are all kinds of problems, and I will admit that. There are problems with terminals not being clean and so on. But I think that on balance, in two or three years, we have come a long, long way, and that praise is due to Mr. Robertson, the whole VIA group, and all of the employees. With that I will give a minute to the minister to comment.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Our colleague from the constituency of Thunder Bay-Atikokan has agreed that I can answer his question.
We are very interested in his proposal regarding improvements that could be effected in Thunder Bay but since he has indicated that the proposal is under review and is being studied further, there will be no comment at this time, but we look forward to receiving that proposal.
On the subject of the seaway, research and development is perfecting its technique to keep the grain berths ice-free. We hope this will lengthen the shipping season through the St. Lawrence Seaway, and to that end an icebreaker, the Alexander Henry is based in Thunder Bay. It will be there, as required, at the close of the run. We will co-operate with all the grain shippers to achieve the earliest possible opening in 1981. He has our concurrence that the cost of shipping through the Welland Canal will be kept down. It is evident that this government is supporting VIA Rail in improving the service to passengers and it will continue to do so.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend, if I may, about ten or 15 minutes going into a subject that I discussed with the minister previously. I probably will discuss it with him again, and unless I get different answers, I definitely will. A few weeks ago I asked the minister a series of questions about general aviation. In fairness, I spoke rather quickly, and I rhymed off about eight separate questions in that exchange. I probably passed them by the minister so fast that he did not get a chance to answer them properly. He latched on to one of them and gave the stock answer that we have been given for some time.
December 4, 1980

This evening, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back over those questions, which are all related to general aviation. Frankly, I intend to press again the concept that I put before the minister previously-that within the last decade the Department of Transport has taken an adversary position with regard to general aviation, a position that did not exist earlier. In the regulations it set down, in the manner in which it has dealt with organizations and groups within the general aviation, with reckless abandon the private aircraft operators in this country-country that has more private aircraft per capita than any other company in the world-it has incurred the wrath of a group of men and women who are, by and large, pretty law-abiding citizens, who normally pay their own way, and ask for nothing free from the government.
The first item, which I know the minister will want to answer in exactly the same way he has in the past, has to do with this confounded $5 landing fee that was imposed on private plane operators about five weeks ago. I contend now, as I have contended in the past, that it was put on for one purpose only-to deter private aircraft from going into four airports in Canada. Private aircraft operators and owners do not object to the user-pay principle. Rather, they object to the method that the department uses to collect the fee. Private operators are quite willing to pay their fair share through gasoline tax concession fees or taxes, but not by landing fees. I have been the recipient of those landing fee invoices. They are expensive to produce. Obviously, the $1.65 that was collected did not come near to covering the cost of them. The $5, it seems to me, will barely cover the cost of those multicopied computer-produced, sometimes erroneous invoices. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is the wrong way to go about things. Surely, if any motorist driving through a major city in Canada were faced with a barrier at the edge of that city, and had to pay a $5 fee every time he drove in, he would raise particular hell. And you could not blame him for that. Private aircraft in this country fulfil an identical utility transportation function. I see no reason at all why they should not all be treated similarly. Motorists pay taxes on their gas. Private aircraft owners are already paying a much larger amount on the gas they buy. In fact, the amount right now is about 13.1 cents per litre. Unless that is changed, the tax on motor fuel is about two-thirds of that. If that is the case, why should we have to pay a landing fee, one that is difficult to administer, expensive to collect, and obviously a deterrent to landing at major airports?
Those of us who fly feel very strongly and, as a matter of public policy that this usurious fee should and could be dropped. I shall ask the minister to keep this in the back of his mind and remember that point because I am afraid of what his answers might be.
I shall go on to one or two other points on the long list I have and see what kinds of answers I get to them before the minister comes back to this one. One factor which supports my request those fees be dropped is that the ministry is not providing any alternate service. If, for example, at Vancouver there was an adequate airport at Boundary Bay or if at
Supply
Toronto there was an adequate service at Toronto Island, there might well be a case. They are only a few miles apart. In an answer given to me some time ago, I heard that we should look at Hope airport. I am not in British Columbia very often, and I am sure my British Columbia colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I drove from Hope to Vancouver international it was a very long drive. 1 would never consider it as being a substitute.
There are other things which bother aircraft operators. We are told that Toronto international is extremely busy. I have read it is the third, fourth or fifth busiest airport in Canada in terms of landings and takeoffs. But in the north end of Toronto international, runway 1028 is rarely used. In most majo1-airports there are taxiways which would be perfectly adequate for light aircraft, up to and including the twins of the major manufacturers. There is no reason at all why those taxiways could not be used. These aircraft can land, unless they are extremely heavily loaded, in 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet and take off quickly. It would not take a great deal of expertise to have that happen. Yet, unlike many airports in the United States, the ministry in Canada will not allow this. Aircraft are used in Canada to a much greater degree than they are in any other country. I see the minister and his parliamentary secretary writing away feverishly, so I think I will go through my list. I will let them answer my questions and then I will make one final request at the very end.
One thing that bothers private pilots excessively is the extremely arbitrary system used when a pilot is discharged for medical reasons. There is no way a pilot can get a good second opinion and convince the ministry of his ability to fly. Pilots must use those medical officers-admittedly they are usually good doctors-who have been politically appointed. Pilots are not allowed to go to an independent specialist, particularly a cardiologist, to get a second opinion which would perhaps convince the department of their ability to fly. Surely the minister will recognize that probably one of the safest pilots is one who has had a problem and is taking proper medication, exercising properly and eating a proper diet. After all, that pilot has no desire to have a heart attack at 2,000, 10,000 or
20,000	feet.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris is one of those.


John Raymond Ellis: My colleague, the hon. member for Yukon has made a point that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris had a serious heart operation two and a half to three years ago. By looking after himself, he is probably in better physical shape now than he has been for many years.
Another item which plagues Canadian pilots concerns the regulations covering instrument ratings. The regulations in Canada are so difficult that there are more than 60 times as many instrument-rated pilots registered per capita in the United States than there are in Canada. Yet we have more pilots per capita in Canada. We have need of instrument rating because of our weather and because of long distance flying. We allow U.S. trained pilots to fly in our air space but

December 4, 1980
Supply
we do not allow Canadians to become instrument-rated without complying with a particularly difficult set of regulations. Let me at this point toss in a little item-it exemplifies the type of thing which makes me state over and over again that the ministry has become an adversary to general aviation when it should be the support of general aviation. The department requires encoding altimeters at about 14,000 feet but the regulations with regard to installing an encoding altimeter in one's aircraft are maddeningly difficult and unreasonably expensive. It is not impossible, but it is very difficult to comply with them. Again, these are regulations with which they are not faced in countries where the aircraft are built.
1 think I am getting close to the end of my allotted time, Mr. Chairman, but I want to put just one more question before the minister, his staff and his parliamentary secretary. It concerns the matter of emergency locator transmitters. I have been on my feet in this House about ELTs for all the time I have been here but I have not had a good straight answer to that question yet. The minister, and certainly his staff, will remember that private pilots were forced to put ELTs in their private aircraft. In principle, perhaps it was not a bad idea. If at that time the minister had admitted they had been warned that lithium batteries would cause difficulties, we could have made some representations. The Ministry of Transport was warned by manufacturers in the United States that the lithium batteries they were about to make mandatory in Canadian aircraft would cause difficulties, but the department neglected to heed that warning and went ahead and forced Canadian owners to put ELTs in their aircraft with lithium batteries.
When those batteries gave rise to difficulties and, indeed, caused a couple of serious crashes, the ministry backed off and said pilots were not required to have an ELT in their aircraft. I repeat, we are a country of people who fly. These pilots were forced to put in these ELTs at a cost of never less than $250. They were then told they could and should take them out.
We are now faced with a conflicting set of regulations. Frankly, as one who flies regularly, I do not know specifically what those regulations are. I put an ELT in my aircraft with other than a lithium battery. I hope it will work. The Ministry of Transport should take advantage of the size of this country and the number of aircraft here and develop an electronic locator transmitter which would be the envy of the world. We certainly have the brains and the technology to do that. The department deserves to do it and should do it for all pilots who fly in Canada. However, they are not doing it. I expect that very shortly we will again be told to put those ELTs in and pay for them again. I hope the minister will tell me this evening that if pilots are again forced to put in ELTs, the department will at least help pay for them.
I could go on and elaborate on this theme but I know my time must be running out. I ask the minister to tell me why the ministry has taken on the adversary position it has with the general aviation public in Canada.


Denis Éthier: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. This exercise is an examination of the estimates for which the minister is accountable to the committee. That is the name of the whole exercise, the accountability of the minister. He should be answering the questions, not the parliamentary secretary. That is why he was given all sorts of notice for his department to be called. That is why he is here. It is the minister, not the parliamentary secretary who is accountable. Our practices and procedures require him to account to us on the questions that are put to him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not have to teach you or the member for Yukon any constitutional law and practices. The member knows and Your Honour knows that the fact that I sit here makes me responsible for what my parliamentary secretary says. That is a customary practice and I would not think the member for Yukon would bother to raise that. It is anchored in our practices. I have seen it hundreds of times, as has he. If he has not, it is because he was not looking. It is done regularly. Therefore, I do not see why I should have to defend myself.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I recognize the President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: I only want to invite my colleague to read the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. It is very short and only says that the function of a parliamentary secretary is to assist the minister in his parliamentary duties. So I wonder why my colleague blames the parliamentary secretary for doing his duty. The minister is present in the House and the parliamentary secretary is assisting him in his parliamentary functions.
The hon. member is very lucky to have at the same time the minister and his parliamentary secretary to answer his questions as completely as possible. If he is really sincere, if he really wishes to obtain detailed information, he should be happy to get the red carpet treatment because he has here tonight to answer all his questions a minister and a parliamentary secretary who respect the law and three department officials. I wonder what more the hon. member wants. I wish I could understand the motives of his complaint. Is he sincere? I have some doubt about his real intent, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I only tell him that he is treated royally and that he has no reason for complaining.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order.


Denis Éthier: The point of order has been disposed of.


Erik Nielsen: No, it has not been disposed of. I want to speak further to the point of order.
December 4, 1980


Denis Éthier: The hon. member has spoken on the point of order. The Chair understood the hon. member to insist on having the minister answer the question. It is the privilege of the minister to answer or not to answer. In this case, when the parliamentary secretary wanted to answer, the minister rose and said that he was responsible for what the parliamentary secretary would say. I do not see why we should entertain further the point of order.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order.


Denis Éthier: I am prepared to hear a different point of order, not the same one.


Erik Nielsen: You are going to hear the same point of order. The minister does not need you to-


Denis Éthier: Order. The Chair has made a ruling.
I have listened to the hon. member's point. Ele is not satisfied that the minister is not answering. The minister said he would be accountable for what the parliamentary secretary would answer. 1 have recognized the parliamentary secretary.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order.


Denis Éthier: If the hon. member has a different point of order, the Chair is prepared to hear him.


Erik Nielsen: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings:
That the Minister of Transport be now heard pursuant to Standing Order 29.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I thought it was the gracious thing to do. The parliamentary secretary is extremely competent in these matters.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order. Standing Order 29 is not debatable. The motion must be put now.


J. Michael Forrestall: Put the motion immediately. It is not debatable. It should have been put two or three minutes ago.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I have received advice from the officers at the Table. The hon. member has put his motion under Standing Order 29. I will read that Standing Order for the information of the hon. member:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.


Erik Nielsen: That is the wrong one.


Denis Éthier: I did not see the minister rise to seek the floor. I then saw the minister rising to speak-


Erik Nielsen: And I was on my feet.


Denis Éthier: The minister was not seeking the floor. Therefore the motion that he be now heard does not apply.
Supply


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is happening to the time of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings?


Denis Éthier: The rule states "when two or more members rise to speak". The minister had not risen to address the committee. The Chair did not make a choice one way or the other. The Chair recognized the only member who had risen, namely the parliamentary secretary. I then recognized the hon. member for Yukon on a point of order. If I failed to recognize the minister seeking the floor, and someone suggests that he now be heard, I stand to be corrected, but I did not see the minister rising to be heard. Now I see him rising to be heard. The Minister of Transport.


Erik Nielsen: Now you see the two of us. Please put my motion.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Erik Nielsen: It is not debatable.


David Michael Collenette: It is out of order.


Erik Nielsen: It must be put immediately.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I think you made yourself clear. The hon. member for Yukon did not have the floor in this debate. He was recognized on a point of order. He could only make that motion if he had the floor and was speaking to the debate. If the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings wants to make the motion, that is his prerogative. It is not the prerogative of any member on a point of order to move that a certain member be heard.


Erik Nielsen: It certainly is. The minister could solve it all by answering the questions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 resent that-


Denis Éthier: This is the third time the minister rises to speak. I hope the hon. member for Yukon will accept that the minister wants to address the committee.


Erik Nielsen: Absolutely.


Denis Éthier: Should I recognize the hon. member on a point of order rather than the minister? That was not a point of order. For the fifth time I see the minister seeking the floor. Perhaps later on the hon. member will want to seek the floor.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister will answer the questions, I will gladly withdraw my motion.


Denis Éthier: That is not for the Chair.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I consider the behaviour of the member for Yukon rather unfriendly. I have been here since three o'clock

December 4, 1980
Supply
this afternoon enjoying myself very much. I have a very talented parliamentary secretary.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know how many times it has been said here that ministers are not making proper use of their talented parliamentary secretaries.


Erik Nielsen: He can reply when you are away, and not on estimates.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I explained my constitutional position very clearly. I am responsible and that is the name of the game. The hon. member for Yukon knows it very well. If anybody knows, he knows it very, very well. We are trying to answer questions. I was preoccupied, of course, by the round of questions directed to me previously. I was rereading while my hon. friend was speaking. I was reading the submission to the Treasury Board on the dredging at Roberts Bank, which is quite normal. The hon. member for Yukon would have done the same thing.
1 have already been in committee and have answered the same series of questions the member is asking now to the best of my ability. The hon. member for St. Boniface, my learned, talented, distinguished and handsome parliamentary secretary was paying particular attention. One thing that was said troubled me very much and it was the claim that there is an atmosphere of antagonism existing.


An hon. Member:: Adversary.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was troubled by that. I do not see it, but I will be looking into it and inquiring about it. My officials, as far as I know them, are extremely friendly. Maybe the member should talk to me personally about that and give me some examples. It is a very serious allegation.
I do not know how many times I have answered on the subject of increased landing fees; I have written to members on that.


John Raymond Ellis: You gave the wrong answer!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, I gave a long explanation and said it only applied to small piston engine aircraft under 7,000 pounds, and that it only applies at four Canadian airports. Five dollars is not the end of the world. It is a great increase from $1.65. It is less than what is paid at other airports. It is one-tenth of what is paid at Boston and the Kennedy airport. It is not indicative of an unfriendly disposition to general aviation. Other satellite airports are available, Buttonville, Maple, for Toronto; Pitt Meadows and Abbottsford for Vancouver. 1 have recited all these places. I cannot go on repeating them. My officials came to me and asked if I thought it would be too much. We debated it at length and made the decision. Some will think it is unfair. We have debated it in committee and here tonight.
On the subject of pilots' licences revoked by doctors, I am told there is an appeal procedure. There is a well-documented appeal procedure which reviews all medical evidence. I have
received correspondence on almost all of these matters. An appeal can be made to the minister in the final analysis. Spread the message that the minister has very good judgment, is very thorough, very prudent-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. Even after allowing time for the point of order, I think the hon. minister has taken up his 20 minutes.


Mr. Masters:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is particularly appropriate that I should have an opportunity to speak on the subject of the Department of Transport because while we all recognize-and it has been said often during the debate-that transportation is vital to Canada it is especially so to the port of Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay is, as we know, the transportation hub of Canada. We are on the mainline of Air Canada, we are on the mainline of CP Rail, there are extensive CN operations in our area and we are an ocean port
2,000	miles from the sea. I was particularly pleased to note that at the beginning of this discussion on transport the minister mentioned the great growth which is taking place in the west and the anticipated growth which will be taking place there. We take a very special interest in that matter because by and large the grain from the prairies flows through Thunder Bay and, I am proud to say, very efficiently. We are also pleased to note that potash from Saskatchewan is being shipped more and more to the port of Thunder Bay and thence various points around the world. Coal from the west is used in Thunder Bay, reaching our port via rail. The coal which is not used in local plants is shipped elsewhere.
Built in 1959, the seaway showed a profit this year for the first time. It is certainly vindication for those men and women of vision who advocated the building of a project which has meant so much not only to Thunder Bay but to Canada as a whole. I also know that Transport Canada is eagerly awaiting, as we all are, a report from a seaway task force. The department recognizes that this mighty avenue to the world of commerce must be as efficient as possible. We need studies of this kind and we need this harmonious relationship between the federal government, the provinces and the ports themselves to make sure we have the transportation system we need and which we will need more and more in the future.
I remind the minister that we must continue to improve and upgrade our port facilities, our storage facilities and our cargo-handling capability. All ports in this country must be looked at including the port of Thunder Bay, the east coast, the west coast and the Arctic ports such as Churchill and so forth. We must be alert to maintaining our ice-breaking fleets, and we must improve our technology. I believe the parliamentary secretary made reference to that. We must continue to improve our technology to make sure that we can extend the shipping season through the cold Canadian winters. It has been proved that water transportation is still the most energy-efficient means of transporting volume goods, and therefore we think it is in the interest of the country to maintain programs
December 4, 1980

which will allow us to extend the life of the seaway and the use of our ports closer to a year-round basis.
While I have talked a great deal, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, about our port, I would like to make a quick comment about the rail service which comes into Thunder Bay. Rail, of course, was our first major way of linking the country together from sea to sea, and 1 am happy that we as a government are continuing to look to the rail service and giving it its due. As we all know, more money has been allocated to the rail service in the budget to make sure that the system works effectively, and I think when we see and note that Thunder Bay had a record season in grain shipment this year, we must acknowledge that the rail system is indeed working, and working well. I just suggest to the minister that we continue our studies and our improvements, that we look to ways to improve the efficiency of rail handling and that we also look to the subject of rail relocation in the many communities in Canada which want things done to correct the lack of planning of years gone by or to catch up with the changes in our modern communities. Those are long-term projects, and certainly no one would expect that we would see those things happen in a day or a year, but I hope we are looking at plans which will put us in such a position to set policies which will lead to that desired end over time.
The air service we receive in this country is also very vital to keeping this country together. I am proud that Air Canada is showing a profit. I believe we have a great Canadian airline; I believe it is being recognized and will enjoy a very prosperous and good future.
I note that the federal government is working in northwestern Ontario on the northern Ontario aviation master plan. This means that the Ontario government and the federal government are working closely to improve the air safety situation in the north. Northwestern Ontario counts very much on feeder airlines and small private planes flying about to cover the vast distances involved.
I hope that we continue the work we have been doing in Timmins, and the Thunder Bay airport, the Kenora airport, and at Dryden. The new air navigational aid which has been installed at Wawa gives us an even greater safety factor.
I have talked much about Canada's water, air and rail services, and 1 am proud that Transport Canada serves all of Canada so well. We can all suggest changes and find fault in individual situations, but I think that if we are honest with one another, we must encourage the Department of Transport to continue giving us one of the best transportation systems in the world.
Finally, I will give the minister a brief reminder and ask him to be sure that his department is looking ahead and planning for the future because long-term planning is required in these vital functions. I know that the minister will want to be sure to advise his department to look at the transportation needs of the country in a long-term way so that when we need additional services and improved services, they will be provided.
Supply


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to make a few comments about prairie branch lines and then pose a few questions to the minister.
The minister is aware that under his predecessor some 1,000 miles of line were given protection by order in council, 600 to the year 2000 and some 400 with the intention of doing a study of off-line elevators. After the minister took over I found it rather interesting to listen to some of the comments he made as he travelled about the west. The indications seemed to be that he was the one who saved these lines. 1 have also noted that the former member for Assiniboia has spent some time suggesting that he and his party saved these lines. More latterly members of the NDP in Saskatchewan have been saying that they saved the lines. I think it is rather important to make it perfectly clear for the record that the 1000-odd miles of line which were protected were protected by the Conservative government under the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville.
Some hon. Miembers: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: It was interesting as well to listen to the comments of the minister, who said that he himself did not think the lines should be saved, but after talking to some of his colleagues he felt it was in the political interest of his party to do so.
After the minister came to power he examined the order in council of his predecessor and did in fact leave the guaranteed lines alone, but he took steps to pass an order in council to the effect that those 400-odd miles of lines which were set aside for off-line elevator purposes were taken off the protection list. In newspaper reports and on the radio the minister's comments with respect to the off-line elevator concept were to the effect that there was no evidence of any kind before him which he could study to determine whether the off-line elevator concept should be considered.
I found this rather interesting because there is a public document in existence. It was put out by the research branch of the Canadian Transport Commission, and it is entitled "Economic Feasibility of Off-track Elevators". The date of that report is January, 1980, yet the minister said there were no studies and nothing to indicate that the off-line elevator concept should be considered. I hope the minister will take steps to obtain a copy of this public document. I hope he will read it and give consideration to try the off-line elevator concept at least on one line. The former minister suggested the Fisher Branch line, which goes some 80 miles without an elevator or a station on it. The cost of rehabilitation, as I recall, would be about $10 million. There is grain at the top end of that line which has to be delivered to the elevator. In our minds it made sense that the off-line elevator concept should at least be given a try on that line. However, the minister simply threw the suggestion out on the basis that there was no study. He had nothing on which to base a decision, so he arbitrarily passed an order in council to refer those 400-odd miles of line to the CTC for consideration and abandonment.

December 4, 1980
Supply
The minister is aware, of course, that the steps taken by his predecessor were based on certain recommendations made to him in a report. I know he has said publicly on several occasions that he did not have access to that report and was therefore not in a position to really understand the reason for the recommendations. But if the hon. gentleman had been watching the news releases which came out of the office of the Minister of Transport, he would have found that on December 20 of 1979, the department issued a news release setting forth several recommendations which the then minister said he was prepared to act upon. One recommendation was to the effect- I hope the minister will consider it

that an advisory committee should be set up composed of representatives of the various elevator companies, the railways and the office of the grain transportation co-ordinator to determine priorities for the rehabilitation of the lines. The minister is aware that until this time the consideration of the priorities is a matter for consultation between the railways and the minister's office. The basis of the recommendation which the former minister was prepared to accept was that the elevator companies should have a part in the decision-making because their decision as to which elevators on which lines would be upgraded or where new elevators would be built had to be based on a decision with regard to rehabilitation. The minister accepted that recommendation. I should like to ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to consider that recommendation.
The other point I should like to make also concerns a recommendation adopted by the former minister. Many people throughout the prairie provinces have been concerned about the validity of the charges set by the railways when they are rehabilitating their lines. The recommendation accepted by the minister was to the effect that when the rehabilitation work could be done by contractors in cases where the engineering skill of the railroads was not required, public tenders should be called. If the railway wished, it could submit a tender, and if it happened to be the lowest tender, the railway would be entitled to do the job. The calling of tenders would mean that the public and the government would know they were getting value for their money in the rehabilitation of the rail lines.
My final question to the minister is with respect to the time-frame and the money to be spent on the rehabilitation of lines. I understand that, in 1979 dollars, the total cost of rehabilitation was estimated at some $1.2 billion. The government recommended the expenditure of some $700 million for rehabilitating the lines. I am told that the cost of rehabilitation appreciates at the rate of 10 per cent a year. So it seems to me that, at the present rate of expenditure, it is doubtful we will ever catch up with the rehabilitation of the lines which have been guaranteed to the year 2000. So my third question to the minister is: what are his intentions with respect to the financing of the rehabilitation. I hope he will not say to us that we will be using that $4 billion which was announced a few months ago by the government as moneys which would be made available for economic development in western Canada. That $4 billion is money coming from the west, and if it is
going to be used for economic development, I suggest to the minister that economic development does not mean rehabilitation of lines.
I have posed my questions and I will now sit down. 1 would appreciate hearing from the minister in response.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, let me say briefly that the reason I did not accept orders 16, 17 and 18 approved by my predecessor relatively late in his tenure was that there was no overt, known or public justification for what had been done. I found that to be rather strange and that was why I hesitated. I also hesitated because there has been quite a lot of debate on other ways of transporting grain. A number of people have come out in favour of off-track and off-line elevators, transportation by truck, and so on, and I thought that this issue should be aired and that a debate should take place before a decision was reached on the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars. However, what happened is that I went round consulting a great number of people. I did not talk about studies having been made. I just happen to have the notes that I used and the communique which I issued at that time. It says specifically that my recent extensive discussions with almost all the grain handling companies in the west have led me to the conclusion that the subsidized hauling of grain by truck, which was considered by some as a possible alternative to rebuilding the rail lines, is not generally accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is so much division on those things that you are happy when you have a few friends around. That is what I said. I did not say that there was no study, I just said that my experience demonstrated that there was no great, passionate movement in favour of the subject. That is why I did not pursue order 17, inclusion in the basic network for a period of five years, which was based on the concept of off-line elevators.
On the selection of branch lines for rehabilitation, it is as my friend described it. The selection is essentially decided by the railways and the department. I presume it is still the case. I am told, and I assumed repeatedly that it was being done, that the department consults with grain companies before taking a decision, and now, presumably, it does so with the grain co-ordinator. My hon. friend knows so much more about it than I do, or he can easily claim he does, so he must be aware that very often the grain elevator operators are not too keen to let it be known that they intend to close an elevator in a certain place. They are keener, of course, to let it be known that they intend to build a new one, which is the popular thing to do. Closing an elevator is not as welcome. That is why the process and the procedure are informal. When grain companies or pool operating elevators want to make it known that they want the government to rehabilitate a branch line, they find a way. I have been exposed to that process. So unless my hon. friend insists, and talks to me afterwards about it, 1 see no major difficulty there.
December 4, 1980

With respect to the contracts that lead to branch line rehabilitation, I understand that a great number of them, or parts of them, are open to bidding on a local basis on some of the less specialized jobs. But when it comes to the more specific railway work which needs to be done, generally it is done by the railways themselves for a good number of reasons. One of them is that there is what I would call a respectable agreement between the railways and the unions that the railways will go to their own employees to do the work before contracting it out. So, my friend will have to make a decision-to whom does he want to be friendly?
I think the regular employees of railways deserve some consideration when it comes to specific technical work; 1 do not take objection to it. But this is not the debate. The debate really is-who will do best the technical railway work? I think the railways would do it best.


Douglas Charles Neil: There is no question about that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Also there is the element of protecting the regular permanent railway employees, which is why more of the work is not contracted out. As far as I am concerned the explanation is justified. I hope it is justified to the hon. member as well.
With respect to the size of the budget allocated to branch line rehabilitation, the hon. member knows better than I that $240 million has already been spent. The total amount has not changed since the hon. member for Vegreville was the minister. It is $700 million over a period of eight years. The point raised or implied is a valid one. If we had more money, it would be a good thing to accelerate the process, for a great number of reasons, one being the advantage of concentration. There is no doubt if more work was being done over a shorter period of time that there would be sizeable advantages. But, things have not really changed. The same amount of money has been allocated, and one thinks about what one might be able to do if it could be accelerated.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Chairman, I have one quick comment with respect to the off-line elevator concept. With regard to the Valleyview line, if it disappears and there is no offline elevator-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They do not have a line now.


Douglas Charles Neil: My colleague advises me that they do not have a line, that it is gone. This means 700 farmers are hauling grain 100 miles. Where is the equity in that?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. Unfortunately the hon. member's time has expired, but perhaps the minister has a brief reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I was going to say smilingly that the equity is in the same place as it was when my predecessor was the minister. My information is that my predecessor suggested-and I do not want to go through all the details- that in this particular matter, circumstances being what they
Supply
are, the initiative might be with the government of Alberta. Also I understand my predecessor suggested to interested parties that they should knock at Alberta's door first. I think this is a good idea.


Erik Nielsen: What does that have to do with Moose Jaw?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There could be discussions between Alberta and ourselves to see what the division might be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At that time there were good relationships between the two governments.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Chairman, I have three questions which I should like to put to the minister. I will put them one at a time and hope that the minister does not use up all the time answering the first one.
My first question concerns the estimates on the Prince Albert airport, that is, the present, past and future ones. My second question concerns boxcar requirements, and my third concerns the consolidation of express across the west.
Dealing with the Prince Albert airport, Prince Albert is an area with 30,000 people. It has a marketing area of another
30,000	people, plus 30,000 people in the far north which it services as far as transportation is concerned. In the last few years Prince Albert has been treated to the chicken-and-egg syndrome. When it asks for east-west air service, it is told that it cannot have that service because the planes cannot land at its airport; that it does not have the terminal nor the necessary navigational equipment. On the other hand, when it asks for an extension of the runways, the necessary navigational equipment and the terminal, it is told it is no use building at the Prince Albert airport because there is no east-west service anyway.
Last year there was a proposed extension of the runway which did not come about; terminal work and navigational aids are to be completed in 1980-81. What happened to these items-the extension of the airports, the apron, the terminal work and the navigational aids?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the member would continue with his points so that we could find the sheet relevant to Prince Albert. It is impossible for a minister or even his very bright parliamentary secretary to know what is going on at each airport in Canada. Sometimes I consult with those people who spend their days there and they cannot tell me everything.


Erik Nielsen: Otto Lang would have known.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The member should know that we are personally familiar with the one in Winnipeg and the one in Ottawa, just to mention two airports. If the hon. member wants to continue and elaborate on his other points, we will be ready to answer by the time he finishes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: in the last few years there have been a considerable number of commitments to the building of boxcars, particularly hopper cars. What are the plans for the

December 4, 1980
Supply
future? The Wheat Board has indicated that it needs 1,000 hopper cars a year for the next four or five years to ship the 30 million tonnes of wheat which will be shipped by 1985, and after that another 900 to 1,000 per year. What are the plans as far as the provision of hopper cars is concerned? How effective will the $4 million in the budget for rehabiltiation be? 1 wonder whether we are losing more boxcars than we are gaining by the process of rehabilitation. Also in the same area, what are the plans for more locomotives? Does the government have plans with respect to those? Last, does the government have plans to build five lakers which the industry suggests will be necessary within the next few years to move the grain out from Thunder Bay?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert regarding the airport at Prince Albert, completion of portions of runway extension, firehall and equipment and other improvements to the airport are dependent upon the air carriers selected by the CTC. There are two carriers competing for east-west flights, or, flights in both directions. One application was submitted in April this year, the other in May. It is contingent upon decisions by the CTC and as soon as that is decided upon the initiation of such flights will require the improvements to be in place. We will be governed accordingly.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I would like to continue on that point, Mr. Chairman. I accept that answer but I take exception to it because we have been waiting now for three or four months for the CTC hearing. It does not seem to be coming off. We are being told there is no rush since we do not have the airport facilities anyway. That puts us back to the chicken and the egg situation. If we do not get those facilities we will not get the air transport. Therefore, let us get the CTC hearing on the road. Can the minister use his good offices to rush that CTC hearing?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The hon. member must recognize that the CTC is an autonomous body and it does not take instructions very lightly or directly from a minister. He can request the status of a hearing but he cannot order them to have one by a certain date.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 am my own adviser on a number of aspects with respect to grain here tonight. With respect to hopper cars, it is well known the government has purchased 8,000 of them since 1973. If one begins to add others purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta-1,000 each-and the leasing by Manitoba of 540, the total amounts to 15,400 for 1981. I am sure the hon. member is aware of this. The question is: where do we go from here? By the way, the strike at Hawker-Siddeley in Trenton may be over and there are 600-odd cars which can be built there.
What about the future? We have asked the grain co-ordinator to look at it. He has produced a report in which there is a suggestion made that we will need, if my memory serves me correctly, 1,700 per year from 1982 to 1985. So we are
considering three times 1,700. There is discussion as to whether it is too much or too little. Most people say "How do we predict it?" The situation for this year is very good, as everyone knows. There is no immediate problem. But as the hon. member seemed to imply, we must get into an anticipatory mood on this subject. We must try to forecast what will be needed; sometimes we will be wrong one way and sometimes right the other.
With respect to the use of the $4 billion western development fund for the purpose of purchasing hopper cars, I am quite sure the suggestion from the member for Prince Albert will not be well received in some quarters. People will say we used to purchase hopper cars before, why not continue.
If I may finish my assertions on this subject, this is closely related to the Crow question, with the modernization of the Crow issue. Obviously there is a relationship between the compensatory price and the purchase of hopper cars. If the railways were taking responsibility for the provision of hopper cars that would affect the compensatory price. But the general mood in the west is that one way or another the Canadian government, the Wheat Board and the provinces should continue purchasing hopper cars in order to make up for the neglect which has taken place in the past.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I do not know where you heard I made the suggestion that the $4 billion be used for the purchase of hopper cars. I did not make any such suggestion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The next question 1 have is in relation to the Canadian National shutting down a great many of their express stations in the west during the last few months. For instance, in Prince Albert they have shut down their car lot station and they are pulling out of express entirely. This is happening in several other places as well. Have they not violated the terms which they accepted a little over a year ago when, if I am not mistaken, they closed down 55 railway stations? The suggestion at that time was that if they moved all the express into Prince Albert they would be able to provide much better service. Now they have taken it out of Prince Albert and put it into Saskatoon. My understanding a year ago was that if they closed those down they would have the service in Prince Albert. Are they not in violation of that agreement? Can the minister not do something to ensure that they do adhere to the Railway Act and the promises they made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not familiar with that situation, therefore I cannot deal with it. 1 will find out and consult with the hon. member on the subject of the number of hopper cars suggested by the grain co-ordinator. 1 indicated 1,700 for three years. I was extracting those figures from my memory. I now have other statistics in front of me, which show that the grain transportation authority recommends 1,290 for the four years, 1981-82 to 1984-85. My curiosity led me to try to find out what the difference was between the two sets of figures. Three times 1,700 is 5,100, and four times 1,290 is 5,160. So I was not too far out in my figures. The main point is we will have to
December 4, 1980

participate and make sure that the hopper cars are in the system in time.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. There have been discussions among the parties and we have agreed that in the last 80 minutes of debate there will be eight ten-minute speeches: four from the Conservative party, three from the Liberal party and one from the NDP.


Erik Nielsen: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. Because I want to be friendly to the Minister of Transport, we do not mind at all if his parliamentary secretary answers his colleagues on his side, and the NDP, but we will be obliged if he will personally answer our questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree to the proposition put forward by the parliamentary secretary.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it appears that we have just created two classes of members in this House. One class receives responses from the minister and the other class receives responses from the parliamentary secretary. It appears to me that it is up to the minister to determine whether he wants to answer or whether he wants to delegate that duty to his parliamentary secretary.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no point of order. There was an observation by a member of the opposition only. The House order relates only to the number of speakers and the length of the speeches.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Chairman, I would like on this occasion to publicly congratulate the minister on his recent visit to my area in September for the inauguration and official opening of the new air terminal. The work of the Department of Transport is never completed, and certainly this is true in the minister's case. Transportation problems are continuous, and my area is no exception in that regard.
With regard to the highway strengthening program for New Brunswick, I would like to garner from the minister what type of understanding will be arranged with the Hatfield government and the provincial minister of transport to ensure that some of the additional funds to be negotiated for the program will be spent in northern New Brunswick, particularly on highway 11 and highway 17. 1 am told that once again the plan is to spend all the funds in the golden triangle area of Fredericton, Saint John and Moncton.
I would also like to take this opportunity to make a few suggestions to the Minister of Transport. Even if we cannot find the funds necessary for all the projects and even if we cannot obtain agreement from the bureaucrats and the officials who advise the minister on projects which we feel are absolutely necessary, could I at least receive agreement from the minister to assist us as members of Parliament by giving instructions to these officials to at least communicate to us some of the plans they have in mind?
Supply
I am thinking specifically of CN Express. I was surprised to return from the United Nations, after representing this country as a delegate there, and learn through the media that the great men of Canadian National had decided that they would close out certain offices thus laying off hundreds of Canadians in one fell swoop. 1 am sure the minister will fully understand why such a proposal is totally unacceptable to me. This is my first opportunity to say something on this matter, and fortunately we have more time left before CN implements its decision. I am told the date is August, 1981.
The other day I referred to this action as heavy-handed tactics. In so far as the good will and public relations of the head office of that corporation is concerned, it will have to learn to get a little closer to members of Parliament if it wants to enjoy our co-operation and support. I am talking about future estimates and expenditures and any other operations it might care to undertake.
The economy in my area cannot tolerate the closure of an office of such importance just when development is beginning to take place through DREE, regional projects, new mining operations such as a zinc smelter, modernization of the pulp and paper mill and so on. An amount in the order of $500 million is about to be spent on development which is beginning to show results, as indicated by the conference board; yet the CN seems to be in some other country or in some other space because it does not seem to know about this new development. Why would CN Express close out when a given region is just beginning to develop and will need its service?
We cannot afford heavy-handed tactics from the CN which would cause the loss of one job, let alone 30 jobs, as is the case in my constituency. 1 woud like the minister to convey my sentiments to the president of CNR. Right here in the House is the place for me to express my feelings directly to the minister so that he may personally pass them on to Mr. Bandeen.
I would like to move on to the subject of the dollars which would be spent on port development. My constituency has two ports, one at Belledune and one at Dalhousie. The minister may detect in my voice that I am just about out of patience.

It is not a question of being just about out of patience-I have lost patience!

We can all understand what happens to good will when one runs out of patience. It is not very pleasant, and I do not like to be put in this position. Based on the suggestion 1 made earlier with regard to corporations like CN getting closer to members of Parliament, I would also recommend that the officials responsible for marine and port development communicate and consult more with members of Parliament. When I say a little but more, I mean quite a bit, because those officials have not bothered to visit my constituency or advise me what their plans are. What is the rationalization for all the moneys which will be spent on the major ports of Halifax, Saint John and

December 4, 1980
Supply
Montreal in eastern Canada? But I am speaking about the Atlantic region.
In years gone by there have been agreements to spend dollars for the expansion for the Belledune port. We know what the agreements were. They still exist, they are still available, and they are being updated. It is strange, for example, with regard to the potash question, that although economies could be effected by utilizing the facilities at Belledune, the government is not even interested in saving a few millions of dollars. It is going ahead in an area where there is a dispute over the use of the land, over the availability of funds to instal the facility and a question of time. The people are ready to ship that product, and they are not interested in any particular argument. They want to get the product to market.
I suggest that we talk to CN about getting a unit train price to portage potash from Sussex to Belledune where the equipment is already in the place to put the potash over the side. Perhaps the $25 million or $30 million will not have to be spent for a new facility at the other place in New Brunswick. Other members have said tonight they are happy to have the floor, and so am I. It is part of my responsibility to my constituents to tell to the minister exactly what the situation is.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the minister for his assistance not long ago with regard to the new development in air transportation. But that does not mean the job is finished. We need air passenger service to the capitals of the four Atlantic provinces-Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax and Saint John. We need the co-operation of the people in the business, and that includes Transport Canada. My plea to the minister is for his understanding and assistance in this regard. I am not talking merely about an indication of good will; I am talking about action. I would like the minister in the coming months to give concrete, written instructions that this is the approach which could be taken in order to get a little closer to finding solutions to some of the problems to which I have referred this evening.
I am also talking about the whole question of whether Quebecair, Nordair or airlines in Quebec could come from the Gaspe to New Brunswick and make use of that new airport at Charlo.
I am speaking also about having more discussions about the other maritime airline, EPA which was considering a linkage, a regional service, an interprovincial service to the six cities in New Brunswick as well as the four Atlantic capitals.
We are, Mr. Chairman, a long distance away from Utopia. The job is far from completed-very far from completed. As I have indicated already, it has yet to be decided where these dollars should be spent, who is to be favoured with approval and what equipment will be needed to modernize and expand the port at Belledune as well as additional facilities at the port of Dalhousie. If the minister is successful in getting his officials to discuss these matters with the people who are interested and responsible for the developments in this area, we are likely to enjoy some success in this regard.
Insofar as CN express is concerned-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but according to the House agreement made a few moments ago, his time has expired. The hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a few questions that are of vital importance to my constituency and they follow along the same lines as those of the previous speaker.
On August 15, I received a notice of hearing from the CTC informing me that the CNR had made application to abandon the operations of the Yarmouth subdivision from a point near Liverpool, Nova Scotia, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, a total distance of 135.68 miles. The reason given was that the line was operating at a loss and the losses for 1975 were listed at $2,181,000: for 1976, $1,831,000, and for 1977, $1,769,000. It stated that the losses for 1978 and 1979 would be given at the hearings. Naturally when these facts became known, numerous briefs from outraged businessmen were forwarded to me as their member of Parliament, and, of course, these were sent on to the minister. Unfortunately, as I stand here tonight, to date, I have not received a concrete response from the minister, so my first question to him is to ask why there has been no answer to the questions I have raised concerning this matter.
What is happening, Mr. Chairman, in my riding, is a far cry from the promises that were made by the Prime Minister when he was campaigning in my province on Friday, January 25. At that time he was full of promises for our people, promises which were endorsed by Liberal supporters and repeated ad infinitum up and down the various constituencies of Nova Scotia. On the front page, for example, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, on January 26, we read among other things, these words as stated by the then leader of the opposition, now our Prime Minister:
We will use revenues raised through energy taxation to make big projects happen-railway building, pipeline construction, a western electrical grid, and coal liquefaction are only a few of the projects that the energy boom could produce.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how you can equate that promise with the actual facts. If you would call removing 135 miles of railway line railway building, I do not know what you would call railway destruction.
To add insult to injury, on November 5, the province of Nova Scotia received another body blow from the CNR. The Canadian Transport Commission at that time, and I am quoting from their order No. R-31558, stated, in the matter of the application of CN Railways to phase out certain services in the province, that the applicants were authorized to remove the agency positions located in eleven listed locations. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that seven of these are in my own constituency. The order goes on to say that the station buildings in eight locations will be put up for sale. Seven of these are in my riding.
I raised this matter in the House on November 18, as reported at page 4802 of Hansard, only to be told at that time by the minister that the action was necessary because CN Express was losing money. He had previously stated that the
December 4, 1980

CN had lost $14 million in 1970 and will lose $57 million this year. When I asked him if he planned to close down Mirabel, which is also losing more than $50 million annually, he said no one should compare the two. 1 agree with him; for once he is right. He is right because the CNR in its express service is serving a vast area throughout the province of Nova Scotia, while Mirabel serves only one area. 1 say to you, sir, that if $50 million needs to be saved, the minister should close down Mirabel and use the money to upgrade and continue its CNR services in the entire province of Nova Scotia.
This is what the Chronicle-Herald said in part in a lead editorial, about the cut in our express service:
It has been announced that Canadian National is to cut back its express service right across the country. As a result of this decision, about half of its offices will be closed and 1,100 of a workforce of 5,500 will join the ranks of the unemployed. In the Atlantic region, it is estimated that some 254 jobs will be lost and 15 offices will go out of business.
In other words, this government, which is loud in its promises when it is campaigning in Nova Scotia, has now adopted a policy of "sock it to them. Sock it to the bluenoses." Close down the express service. As soon as they are in power that is the course they follow. Almost one-quarter of the personnel in all of Canada will be laid off in my province alone. Think of the economic impact that will have in a province which has less than one million people. I submit to you, sir, that this will be very disastrous.
The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour-I regret that neither is in the House at the present time-also represent my province. They should hang their heads in shame, for supporting this type of measure which cannot help but be harmful to the people they were elected to serve.
Tonight, sir, I make a plea to this minister to call a halt to these disastrous measures. Canadian National must be faulted for applying for abandonment of unprofitable lines, while not putting forward its good case for continuing the lines it has in service. Once in a while we see an occasional advertisement on TV which shows one man pulling a freight car which reads, "Very low friction, a railway is energy efficient." It is a very good ad, but when I see it I cannot but ask: have we no energy problem in Canada, or does the left hand of CN not know what the right hand is doing? CN officials should be reminded that all Canadians-and that includes Nova Scotians, Mr. Chairman-have paid their share to forgive a CNR debt of many millions of dollars. This was done only recently, and now CN, through its present financial arrangements, can boast of large profits.
I submit, sir, that an obsessive drive for profits at any cost cannot excuse CN from its obligations to provide needed service. In my view, and in the opinion of my constituents, the profitable parts of CN's operations must carry the less profitable ones.
Finally, in support of my plea-and I hope my time permits me to do this-I wish to place on the record the brief prepared by the South Queens Chamber of Commerce concerning the proposed abandonment of service along the South Shore. I quote the following:
Supply
The South Queens Chamber of Commerce takes strong exception to the proposed abandonment of service, by CN Rail, of their Liverpool, Nova Scotia to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, rail line. It has been apparent for some time that CN has been neglecting this rail service resulting in it becoming an unattractive and inefficient mode of transportation.
Listen to this, Mr. Chairman-
The crossings over public roads and highways are in such bad repair that highway travel is uncomfortable. Local automobile repair businesses are thriving on the undercarriage damage to cars using these crossings. The railway bed has deteriorated to the extent that trains travel at a reduced speed. (Roughly 15 miles per hour.) The cost to ship goods by rail is unreasonable considering the slowness and unreliability of the service.
It is my suspicion that CN through their neglect of this line, have created the inequity that they claim exists. To put it simply, if the line is losing money and has become unattractive to its potential users, CN must accept the blame and criticism.
Of particular importance to our county are the Bowater Paper Company and Steel and Engine Products Limited, our two largest employers. Both companies rely on rail service. With regard to Steel and Engine, abandonment of the rail line would probably cause this industry to relocate. The president and general manager of Bowater, Mr. Robert Weary, has suggested to me that the rail service is vital to that paper mill.
1 have been informed by the Industrial Commission in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, that several industries in their industrial park depend upon rail service for a number of their materials. To threaten these businesses along the South Shore by abandoning this rail line, would appear to me, to defeat the political philosophy of our government. Although I disagree with many of the give-away practices of our federal government, this must be viewed as a necessary deficit situation. The people of the South Shore are proud, hard-working individuals who boast a low unemployment rate. We need the help of our government-sponsored Crown corporations in fostering growth for our communities.
Submitted by John L. Murray, president.
With the fuel problem in the world today, one which is predicted to become increasingly more severe, rail transportation is obviously a most attractive alternative to our petroleum-based highway service. The price of gasoline will increase dramatically in the very near future and some creative plans are needed. I strongly suspect rail service will play a prominent role in these plans of the future. Incidentally, many European countries enjoy efficient rail service and have had for many years. Could we not learn from their experiences?
The County of Queens and Town of Liverpool have begun to formulate a philosophy that will promote development in our area. Local and provincially sponsored plans have been studied and both councils have agreed to co-sponsor a development officer. The Queens-Liverpool Industrial Commission has broadened its scope to embark on an exploration of local industrial development. For the first time in years, there is evidence of growth.
Renewed growth in our inshore and offshore fisheries point to a trend toward new and creative means of transportation. Dried and salt fish are an abundant local product growing in number and importance. These products are potential rail users.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his allotted time has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: May I just finish my last paragraph?

December 4, 1980
Supply


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member may with unanimous consent, is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We are led to believe that offshore natural gas will be on-stream within five to eight years. Any pipeline distribution complex will, according to the petroleum industry, not be extended into southwestern Nova Scotia. This will make it necessary for refined gas, or propane, to be shipped into our area. A complete rail line is the mode of transportation most often suggested as the most economical and most practical for this purpose. Let us look to the future and be prepared.
In summation, an adequate rail service is necessary for our present industrial needs. Unfortunately, our existing rail service is less than attractive. In light of my remarks concerning renewed industrial expansion and future needs, I strongly recommend that the present rail service not only be retained, but indeed, upgraded. This is the essence of equality for all Canadians.
Now that the minister has learned of these problems, I hope he will take some action to remedy them.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leduc:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the minister. The first one is as follows: The CN had given a contract to Marine Industries Limited for the construction of 1000 hopper cars for grain transport. Some time ago, the CN said that it wanted to back out of this contract and offered compensation to Marine Industries Limited. I would like the minister to tell us whether this commitment and the contract signed between Marine Industries Limited and the CN for the construction of 1,000 hopper cars still hold.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should say first of all that I have received letters from the hon. member for Richelieu giving me some background information. Of course, the situation of Marine Industries cannot be changed, and this contract was extremely important for the company and the representative of this constituency. I have spoken many times of this contract to Mr. Bandeen, and he told me this afternoon that he was now able to confirm that he would maintain his order for 1,000 cars. The order was for 1,000 hopper cars to transport goods other than wheat even though they could be used for wheat, and the CN and Marine Industries are discussing the possibility of changing this order to 700 hopper cars and 300 gondola or open top cars. I am happy to give this good news to the hon. member.


Jean-Louis Leduc: Mr. Chairman, I now come to my second question. There is a coastguard depot in Sorel. There was a rumour some time ago that this depot would be moved to Quebec City or Montreal. Can the minister confirm that this coastguard depot, where buoys and boats belonging to the coastguard are repaired, will remain in Sorel? It has been there for over 150 years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I know that I have already written to the hon. member about this. I sign about 25 letters every day, but if my memory serves me right, some changes were made some months ago, and if I am not mistaken, some boats have been moved and this has brought about the transfer of personnel. Unless I am mistaken, there have been shifts between Sorel and Trois-Rivieres, but number one in the maritime division of my department tells me that he does not foresee-or at least his big books make no mention of any- any unpleasant changes for Sorel.


Jean-Louis Leduc: Mr. Chairman, I now wish to speak about the merchant marine. Naturally, it is of great interest to me since we have a well-reputed dockyard at Sorel. Does the minister believe that Canada might have a merchant marine in the relatively not-too-distant future? We already have one but it should be enlarged to enable us to ship our goods abroad, especially the heavy material, and also to pick up abroad the goods we need for the well-being of our people; something should be done in that regard. Naturally, it is a major problem but I feel that Canada should have a high seas merchant marine as well as a coastal fleet. The present situation is a scandal. We have to hire foreign vessels to handle our inshore trade. It will probably be possible to build a coastal fleet for the St. Lawrence River and our coastal waters along the Atlantic. Might that be possible for the not-too-distant future?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with the subject in my opening remarks yesterday-is it yesterday only or a few days ago-but I would hesitate to deal with it in depth because I would not be doing it justice; still, one thing must be kept in mind and that is that Canada has quite a sizeable merchant marine in the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence, etc. When we speak of the need for Canada to have a merchant marine, we are really thinking especially of the high seas, of international shipping; one of the main things I have learned is that ships belonging to Canadians carry 90 per cent of the freight handled on the Great Lakes. That really impressed me. We must therefore not underestimate ourselves as Canadians to the extent of thinking that we have no merchant marine; when we express the wish of having one, we are really thinking in terms of ships registered in Canada and built in Canada. That is an objective; to sum it up in one sentence only, I doubt that such an objective can be settled philosophically because our main rivals with regard to an international merchant marine, a deep sea fleet, are the manufacturers, the shippers. And what they fear is that they may be forced some day to use ships registered in Canada and that because of that it will make them less competitive on the world market because they will have paid a higher price for the advantage of using ships built in Canada and manned by Canadian crews.
The main opponents of a high sea Canadian merchant marine are the manufacturers: they will have to be convinced that such is not the case and this is now being done because the owners and the Canadian shipbuilders, thinking and in my
December 4, 1980

opinion partly rightly so, that the future calls for a Canadian high seas merchant marine, have started educating their friends in the manufacturing sector, have met with the Canadian Export Association to make them aware of the usefulness of a high seas merchant marine. That had to be said and I thank the hon. member for his question.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Richelieu may put one last question.


Jean-Louis Leduc: In Sorel, we have a gravel airstrip. The pilots of planes and jets do not want to land, they are afraid a stone will hit the engine or something, I do not know exactly. Even the pilots of propeller aircraft are afraid that a piece of gravel will hit the propeller, and apparently the cost of repair is prohibitive. Does the Minister of Transport foresee that in the near future that strip could be paved, and I am thinking not only of the Sorel strip but also of the one in Dolbeau where I landed last winter and which is full of potholes. Those strips should be paved so that jets could land safely and easily?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Unfortunately, the department cannot deal with that in the same way as it does with Mirabel, Moncton or Dorval. In that sort of case, the department does not really feel it has to take action for the simple reason that, unless there are reasons I am unaware of, it cannot force the people to maintain the strip after it has been paved. I would advise the people in Sorel to think this over carefully, to consult the people in Trois-Rivieres, the people in Sherbrooke, especially, who are having trouble with their airport these days and who might be in a good position to give some advice to the people of Sorel on what not to do.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk to the minister about the Fraser River Harbour Commission. As he knows, the commission ports pay no tax or grants in lieu of tax. I would like to know when he is going to bring in the ports act so that the commission ports will stop bilking the municipalities out of thousands of dollars each year. Please do not use the argument that the commission ports bring socioeconomic benefits to the community. If they do that, and 1 do not argue that they do, so do all the other industries in the area which pay taxes. It is about time the commission ports pay either taxes or grants in lieu of taxes. But they will not do it and cannot do it until the ports act is passed. We see the anomaly of the Fraser River Harbour Commission with an annual report showing a profit of $1 million and freeloading off the municipality at the same time. I wish the minister would give me an answer to that question.
Second, in the case of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, there is a port for fishermen called Gunderson Slough. The chairman of the commission, Mr. Chris Brown, has been telling me for the last couple of years with a very benign and beatific smile, how much he plans to do for the fishermen, how
Supply
he plans to improve the harbour and how he cannot wait to get all of the riparian rights so that he can build this great harbour for the fishermen. He has not yet turned a spade or put in a plank. He will not even have the harbour dredged. However, he insists on hanging on to the Gunderson Slough. He loves to control it, but he does not want to do anything concrete for the fishermen. I might point out to the minister that I have a private members' bill abstracting Gunderson Slough from the Fraser River Harbour Commission and turning it over to the minister of fisheries who might take a little more interest than the Fraser River Harbour Commission does in Gunderson Slough.
1 met with Mr. Brown last spring. He promised to bring together two other departments which have an interest in this, fisheries and public works. They were to have a meeting in the spring and Mr. Brown was to report back to me. Of course, I never heard from him again. The meeting took place. I did hear, though, from the Public Works office in Vancouver. They said, and I quote from a letter of June 19:
The current policy of Small Craft Harbours was developed in 1975 and is applied to "scheduled harbours" only. This schedule could be enlarged but in the case of Gunderson Slough it would require an agreement with the Fraser River Harbour Commission.
In order for Gunderson Slough to qualify as a public scheduled harbour there would have to be a sizeable public float installed, say in the order of 400 lineal feet.
That is still, and probably will be for a long time, under the control of the harbour commission which refuses to do anything. When the fishermen left the harbour last spring, they grounded; $20 million worth of boats had a hard time getting out of the slough. Public Works dredged 1, 2 or 3 feet out of the slough. When the fishing season was over in the fall, the boats grounded again when coming back into the harbour.
A boat that draws five feet was bottomed. It stuck. Public Works should take notice there are no navigation buoys in the harbour. Mr. Brown wants to control the harbour, but he does not want to do anything for the fishermen.
I would like to know the minister's department's attitude and policy toward that aspect. Is the minister going to take the Fraser River Harbour Commission to task and make sure that he delivers service to the fishermen who deserve it, or is he going to turn it over to public works or small craft harbours so that at least one department of the government will assume responsibility rather than have confusion among three departments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta for the information he has given me. It is the first time I have heard about the Gunderson Slough. I am not even sure I can pronounce the name properly. I will rehearse tomorrow.
With regard to the status of the harbour commission, under the 1964 act, the hon. member said they were neither paying taxes nor grants in lieu of taxes. I am suspicious that Mr. Chris Brown will not be particularly grateful for the intervention tonight. It is an advantage that he is not too keen to

December 4, 1980
Supply
proclaim. I will not continue because I do not want to incur his wrath.
Be that as it may, Mr. Brown's argument is that the harbour commission makes a very important contribution to the development of the surrounding area in economic terms. Ele feels that is the way the harbour makes its contribution to municipal taxation.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: How was that again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not commenting on it. I am just passing on the message with some conviction on my part because this is a good case. As is well known in maritime circles, that is one of the reasons Mr. Brown has never been particularly keen to pay allegiance to the National Harbours Board. He has always expressed great satisfaction in being under the Harbour Commissions Act. When I met Mr. Brown again recently, I referred to him as "64". He understood very well what I was talking about. He is a legendary character in the area. We all like his cherubic smile, as my hon. friend referred to it, and praise him for the great job he is doing in the area. Be that as it may, 1 will look into the problem raised by the hon. member.


Benno Friesen: Can the minister tell me who the wharfinger is for the harbour commission? Second, will he agree that Mr. Chris Brown is not only the commissioner but the port manager as well?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yesterday 1 appointed a list of wharfingers. I can assure the hon. member that they are all believers in free enterprise, the future of the country, peace, harmony, good government, stability of laws and other virtues.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. minister for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I appreciate the promotion, Mr. Chairman, but not to this government. I would like a clear and unequivocal answer to this. Why is it that the Surrey municipality has been denied an opportunity to appoint a nominee to the commission?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The situation with the Fraser commission is that a number of municipalities got together to appoint a member for all of them. If memory serves me well, there was a bit of a problem the last time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: How can a guy remember all that? There was a bit of a problem because one of the municipalities did not want to go along with the others. Finally, 1 had to take the bull by the horns or the horns by the bull-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You should have taken him by the tail.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In accord with the principle of democracy, I had to decide for them, for the majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Parker:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct my questions to the issues of railway safety and air transport. About two years ago there was a serious railway accident involving robot trains in which some 76 cars were derailed. I think the average speed they were supposed to be travelling was around 18 miles an hour yet their speed was over 60 miles an hour. The Railway Transport Commission studied this wreck and about six months ago they made recommendations and expressed certain views as to how things should be done. Can the minister tell us whether those recommendations have been implemented yet or whether they are considered serious enough to be brought in?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I must admit I am not familiar with this particular case, but I know of similar cases. For example, the last difficulty at MacGregor, Manitoba, led to an inquiry by the CTC. The CTC made a whole series of recommendations some of which involved the CTC itself, some the Department of Transport and some the railways. I know how the system works.


Sidney James Parker: I am not asking that question. I am talking about the Revelstoke mountain subdivision of CP Rail in the Revelstoke to Golden areas. These recommendations were made to the effect that when snow reaches-three inches or more on the rails-ploughs would be run and so on. While this investigation was going on there was a reduction in the tonnage to be hauled. Instead of hauling 14,000 tons, I think they reduced the weight of this train to somewhere around 9,000 or 10,000 tons. Before the report came in they allowed CP Rail to increase it to 14,000 tons. Two days ago in Elkford, on a piece of track that allows trains to go ten miles an hour, a robot train with 14,000 tons and approximately 76 cars went out of control and derailed.
Is the minister prepared to recommend to the Railway Transport Commission that they immediately request a reduction of tonnage on these trains until the reports come back on this accident?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am quite prepared to have a discussion with the CTC on that subject. I am not prepared to commit myself and tell the railways how to run the railways.


An hon. Member:: It's about time someone did.


Sidney James Parker: May I remind the minister that less than three weeks ago I wrote to him after the investigation was made into the labour problems in Revelstoke? Some very significant problems were brought out in that report as to the operation of trains on this piece of track-not this specific piece but the piece on the Revelstoke Mountain subdivision. I requested that the minister consider sending some railway transport commissioners in to investigate the reports which came out of the labour relations investigation at Revelstoke. To date I have not received a reply although I had a very brief discussion with Mr. Charles Turner who has, I believe, made a suggestion to
December 4, 1980

the minister's department. 1 am concerned about this matter and would urge the minister to look into it immediately.
I will go on to another area, if I may. During a health and safety standard tour by our party to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick we visited the air traffic controllers' building in Moncton, a new building which I think the minister opened a few months ago.
Some of these air traffic controllers were working double shifts-and in a brand new building-because there were not enough adequately trained people to do the job. Is the minister planning a major training program to train air traffic controllers so that the public does not have to travel in aeroplanes when air traffic control officers are working these extended hours?
The Montreal airport is short 60 controllers, Toronto is short 34, Vancouver is short 27, Moncton is short 25 and Gander is short 20. Is the minister not concerned that we are operating aircraft with these staff shortages? Is he prepared to start immediately setting up a major training program so that we can begin training people to handle the strenuous job of operating control towers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the figures provided by my hon. friend are from the union, CATCA, and they tend to exaggerate, as we all do occasionally. The hon. member for Regina West does occasionally, and so do I.
The figures stated with respect to the need for more controllers at the airports mentioned are slightly exaggerated, which does not mean that 1 and the department are fully satisfied with the situation now, particularly when it comes to bilingual controllers, in which case there has been great difficulty simply because of the number who have left Quebec and gone to other provinces. However, that is not the main subject.
I now have the actual numbers with respect to what is needed. If the hon. member used the figure of 30, the department thinks seven might be adequate. As far as I am concerned this is an important subject. I think there should be more controllers to make the profession more open, and we should not be in the situation where we have to depend on these gentlemen to the point we do now. The department devotes much attention to the training of controllers, and I can only assure the hon. member that this is a subject with which I am preoccupied.


Sidney James Parker: The figures I have given are from a report given to the inquiry into aviation safety. It was given by the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association which testified yesterday.
It was made very clear to us during our visit that there is a tremendous amount of stress and strain involved with this work and strain on the families of these people, who are called in to work extra hours and double shifts. This is something the Canadian people cannot tolerate. We must have a better
Supply
system of training and more up-to-date facilities. The control tower to which I referred is tremendously updated, and to have such a facility understaffed is not acceptable.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I take these recommendations quite seriously. I have said that the figures might be exaggerated, and I have given other figures to demonstrate that view. This case has been put to the Dubin commission of inquiry. Mr. Dubin will begin to report in the new year, and I will give much attention to his report.
One of the difficulties with respect to the profession of air traffic controller is that the Canadian government is the only employer. This makes it rather more difficult to attract people to the profession. It makes competition a bit more difficult to bring about.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions to put to the minister. For a number of years the federal government has been a tremendous help to every province in Canada through the grade-crossing fund, and because of the joint efforts of the federal government and provincial governments-and municipal governments in some cases-we have saved hundreds, probably thousands, of lives across this country. For some reason the federal government is now cancelling any contributions to the grade-crossing fund for separations. In the short time allotted to me I would like to endeavour to indicate to the minister that this is a very bad policy.
In 1978 there were 65 deaths at rural railway crossings. Thirty-nine of those, or 60 per cent, were at unprotected crossings. In the same year at urban crossings there were 25 deaths and injuries, and 19 of them were at crossings where there was no protection. At every place where there was a grade separation-either over or under the railway tracks- there were no deaths or injuries. In other words, 90 persons were killed in that one year because there was no protection at those level crossings.
If the federal government continues to follow the policy of not contributing to separations, it will really be adopting a very tragic course because contributing funds to lights and bells only does not do the job. In 1977 at places where there were lights and bells 12 people were killed. In 1978, 25 people were killed. We do not have figures for 1980, but it appears that the figure for 1980 will be even higher. Lights and bells are not doing the job. The only way to make a level railway crossing completely safe is to put in a separation, so I urge the minister to go back to the policy which helped for many years to keep people alive, namely, that of contributing, through the grade crossing fund, to separations over level crossings. Seventy-five per cent on replacements and 50 per cent on new ones is a far better investment than contributing only to lights and bells. Why is the government cancelling its contribution to separations at level railway crossings?
The Greeks had a great hero by the name of Achilles. Achilles had one weak spot, and that weak spot led to his downfall. I am suggesting that the Achilles heel of transportation in Canada today is roads and highways. All the other modes of transportation are receiving more help than the

December 4, 1980
Supply
provinces are with respect to highways and roads. Because of that, we are paying in one way or another. We pay for roads whether we build them or not. We pay for them in lost lives, in crippled bodies, in lost jobs and in repairs to our vehicles. 1 suggest that the Canadian government was wise when it contributed to the construction of the Trans-Canada highway, to the roads to the north, to DREE, to roads in some other parts of the country and, to some degree, to the Yellowhead highway and other highways across the country. The Canadian government, by withdrawing funds from all these highways, is holding back expansion, holding back jobs, and so on. 1 am not saying that too much is going to the other modes of transportation but highways are not getting a fair share of the dollar going to transportation. I ask the minister whether he would review the moneys spent on various modes of transportation with a view to giving highways a better deal. My third point concerns highways such as the Howse Pass highway. The David Thompson highway which goes west to the Banff-Jasper highway where an extension to Howse Pass is required. Part of the cost would come from the B.C. government and part from the federal government. It is relatively few miles long but it would make a splendid access for traffic, particularly for trucks going from central Alberta to Vancouver. I ask the minister to consider the construction of the Howse Pass highway.
My fourth point is on twinning. I should like to ask the minister whether he is really serious about carrying out the promise of the Prime Minister to twin the railways from Winnipeg to Vancouver. There may be parts of that railway which it would be sensible to twin. To stick to the promise and to twin the whole railway would be exaggerated, ridiculous, foolish and would be laughed at in the west. It would be folly indeed. The money could be spent otherwise much better. There is one place, however, where money could be spent wisely on twinning, and that is on the Banff highway. The provinces built it right up to the Banff gates and from there on it is a two-lane highway where thousands of cars are locked bumper to bumper every weekend and sometimes on work days. I wonder if the Minister of Transport, in conjunction with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of the Environment, could take a very careful look at expanding and twinning that highway from the Banff and Jasper gates west. There, too, we would save lives and get the traffic moving faster. 1 would appreciate hearing the hon. minister answer those four points.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the Minister of Transport is always serious. Never ask him whether or not he is serious because even when he smiles a little he is serious. The first point I want to make is that one should not sound the alarm too easily on the number of railway accidents. I have the figures here but I do not think I have time to put them on the record. They indicate that notwithstanding increases in volume and activity, the trend in the number of incidents of derailment, injuries and death reported to the CTC is down. I am just trying to correct an impression which the hon. member might have left with members here and the audience at large.
He said also that payments for railway grade separation had come to an end. That is not correct. What happened in 1977 was a move from the railway crossing grade separation fund to the UTAP fund. The money which used to be in the railway crossing grade separation fund was partially moved to the
UTAP fund, as I explained the other day, in order to give provinces with urban transportation needs other than grade separation access to money for other purposes. That is how the UTAP program became somewhat of a grab bag.
Also I indicated the other day, we may have to return to more strict federal responsibility in the UTAP program. If this takes place, more money would be going to grade separation and less to other urban transit, which 1 am sure other people will resent.
With respect to the department not paying enough attention to highways, essentially highways are a provincial responsibility, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, but I agree with him that the multimodal approach should be more generally accepted in Canada, so that we will not witness situations where railways are being improved at the same time as an adjacent highway is the subject of expenditures.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for London East.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner:: It looks like I am in trouble, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Are you retiring, Charlie?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire the minister and the officials of the Department of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: But I must question the actions and policies of some of the giant corporations which operate under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
I want to cite three recent examples of derailments or fires of serious consequence on the CPR: last November at Mississauga when the city had to be evacuated; last June 9 when again the CPR had a derailment and fire at Komoka, Ontario and the subdivision of Kilworth Heights was evacuated; then about a month ago when a freight car exploded on a CPR line at Thamesville, Ontario.
We can thank the police and firemen that there were no casualties at Mississauga and Komoka-which is precisely all the firemen from Lobo Township, Delaware Township, London Township and Westminster received for their efforts at Komoka when they responded to a mutual aid call, evacuated a subdivision, brought the fire under control, and remained at the scene until such time as there was no longer any danger to the community or the train. Mr. Chairman, these were
December 4, 1980

volunteer firemen who lost pay from their jobs. They risked their lives to control this fire and when they submitted a bill to the CPR for their services they were advised that CPR has an assessment in Lobo Township of $4,900, they pay taxes and they pay $14.38 for fire protection, therefore, "we wish to thank you for your excellent service but we will not pay your account."
When further inquiries were made it was pointed out to the CPR that the normal ratepayer only makes .0285 calls per year while the CPR made seven in nine years. Are they a normal ratepayer? What was the value of that train and its cargo? A locomotive engine costs nearly a million dollars. How many engines were on that train? Two or three. What was the value of the boxcars, tankers, hopper cars and the cargo? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the rolling stock was worth several millions of dollars. And they pay $14.38 a year for fire protection and "thank you, volunteer firemen, for the excellent service. We will probably need you again soon. Be ready."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: I could not help but notice in a report by Dr. Mclsaac and the Hon. Leon Balcer that the president of CPR receives a total salary of $568,515 per year-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Robert Turner: Perhaps this explains why this railroad cannot afford to pay these volunteer firemen for their services to extinguish fires on rolling stock. I believe if his salary were reduced to $528,515 and the difference in salary were used to pay these firemen, they would be happy and continue to provide the protection to the trains passing through their communities. This would, in turn, give peace of mind to both the president of the CPR and the insurance companies.
Mr. Chairman, if these firemen are not compensated for their work under such dangerous conditions then 1 would suggest the CPR and the CNR be forced by legislation or regulation to provide their own fire equipment to safeguard the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Robert Turner: While these volunteer fire departments do receive a degree of compensation from their municipalities to purchase equipment they usually have fund-raising events to purchase lifesaving equipment, uniforms, etc. They are paid if they make a call to a fire on a provincial highway or a county road, and although they charged the same hourly rate for that near-disastrous call on June 9 to the CPR they are still waiting for the pay. In the meantime, the equipment maintenance requires funding. The volunteers have still not recovered lost wages but the president of the CPR still remains on the payroll at the rate of $10,932 per week.
Mr. Chairman, I say thank you, volunteer firemen, for your excellent work.
Supply
This is an outrageous situation. Surely a corporation as large as the CPR can be held accountable, not only to these volunteer firemen from the respective communities of Canada, but also to the farmers of western Canada. I hope when the Crowsnest Pass rate problems are past the persons involved will study the value of services provided against the current value of concessions made 83 years ago.
But in spite of these three accidents-I do not wish to comment on the causes until reports are tabled and translated-the number of accidents is diminishing, primarily due to roller bearings replacing friction boxes on the axles of the cars. In addition, the number of crossing accidents has dropped from a high of 1,074 in 1974 to 654 in 1980. This dramatic drop is due to the efforts of the federal government and the Department of Transport to create overpasses which eliminate grade crossings.
Recently 1 received the following letter from a railway engineer on the subject of dangerous commodities. It reads:
Since the Mississauga derailment the movement of dangerous commodities has generated a great deal of interest. At present it could very well cause regulations of such complexity that they would be very hard and expensive to comply with.
As an operating engineer I will attempt to give my views as to what I would like to see accomplished in the regulations as to my responsibility in the movement of these commodities.
There is no reason why I should know the name or components of any cargo. 1 should know if the cargo is inflammable, toxic, corrosive, radioactive, explosive.
At present, our dangerous commodity placards cover all such cargo. To change the cards and brackets would be expensive and unnecessary. A visual identification method would be more efficient and safer than our present "696 book" which is the rules and regulations given to crews, and the master red book which we do not have. At present we often find we have either overprotected or underprotected the shipment. This is how the colour and number code system could work. In the case of a dangerous commodity with no special handling or immediate health hazard, the present card could be used. An inflammable commodity should carry the present card with a large red "one" stamped on it. The red would indicate inflammable, the "one" would indicate the marshalling requirements. With this method it would be possible to use five or six numbers and cards colour-coded red, orange or black to cover the requirements at the head-end.
The head-end crew should be able to identify the requirement of a dangerous commodity while pulling by at 15 or 20 miles per hour. This method would be simple, easy to apply by the crews and involve little or no additional expense either by the railway or the shipper. The simplicity of this method is probably its drawback. Experts have a habit of talking over people's heads and recommending regulations which only experts can understand. Crews should only be subject to regulations that are thoroughly understood and easy to apply.
In closing, I received a letter from a conductor who says that in form 696, general operating instructions, they are told that the response forms are not required for import traffic and that
5392

December 4, 1980
Supply
mixed loads or freight forward shipments are not required. Would the minister explain to me how this reduces the danger of items shipped? Also, the company, CN, is claiming that part-loads do not require response forms.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for London East for his brilliant participation in this debate. The reception which he received when he entered the chamber was prime ministerial in dimension and very well deserved. I will, of course, communicate the purport of his speech to the presidents of the two railways and obtain specific answers to the question he raised at the end of his comments.
This afternoon I witnessed a very interesting event when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a question on pensioners. Immediately the hon. member for London East rushed to his files and returned with a letter indicating that adjustment to the pensions of CN workers had been made very recently. I do not know if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was aware of that fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but it is not enough.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have those figures in front of me now. CN has recently announced a lump-sum payment to pensioners and survivors to compensate for the increase in the cost of living, and the adjustment for retirees in 1972 and earlier. It will mean increases ranging from $65 to $226 per year. Survivors will receive 75 per cent of that figure. Every year since 1971 CN has provided voluntary adaptation adjustment for pensioners, survivors and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A dollar and a half per week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre over the years, and whenever pensioners receive $150 he stands to request $155 and he has had great success in that regard. He has had great success in doing that and we all love him for it. But I did not want to please him tonight, I wanted to please the member for London East-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and comment on the reaction that he had this evening which was indicative of a staunch defender of railway employees and transportation people in general. The sort of reaction he had was worthy of a distinguished member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have already given my questions to the minister's officials. I want about seven minutes of good, solid responses.
I am very pleased to see you all out here tonight to listen to me-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: I will make just one observation, Mr. Chairman. It was like watching an exercise in New Brunswick togetherness, to see the member from Restigouche trying to steal from the member for Saint John the little pittance that Transport bothers to give to that beleaguered city.
The principal purpose of my speaking at this point is to ask the minister if he would care to respond to several questions which are very pertinent and important to this whole matter of dredging and the capacity of Canadian firms to participate in dredging, for the government account. Specifically, I have given to the minister a number of questions in writing asking whether or not any senior officials in his department have at any point in the past been associated with, or were employees of, any of the firms which may be tendering for work in Canada. I want to ask the minister what response he intends to give to the telex dated December 1, signed by the SIU in which they set out these points. They make the protest in the strongest possible terms, and I will just read it, as follows:
We wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at the inequity of this treatment, as the Canadian dredging industry is obliged to pay all duties and sales taxes on imported components at the time of purchase and construction.
They are responding to information which has come to their attention that foreign vessels will be allowed into Canada on a ten-year pay-out of duties and sales tax, this assessment being levied, as was pointed out earlier by my colleague, only when the vessel is operating.
They go on to make their point that this is not in the interests of Canadian entrepreneurship, nor is it in the interests of Canadian labour. Foreign labour is employed on these vessels, eliminating, as I say, the use of Canadian labour which is available. There are no personal income taxes, if any significance derives from this. The corporation tax, under the treaty is not payable in Canada by the foreign country. Many of these foreign vessels, for example, are registered in tax-free havens. As Canada is one of the-


Denis Éthier: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: This is vital to the continued growth of this country. There are presently three vessels of Dutch origin operating in Canadian Arctic waters. What does the minister intend to do about these questions? How does he intend to respond to the SIU, and how does he intend to respond to the telex dated December 2, 1980. I quote from the second paragraph of the telex, signed the SIU and the Canadian Marine Officers Union, as follows:
The labour movement in Canada can no longer allow foreign labour to take away the bread and butter of the Canadian worker and we will do everything legally possible to disrupt the operation of any foreign dredges operating in Canadian waters.
That is a serious charge, and one that the minister, whether he is familiar with it or not, cannot let go unanswered.
December 4, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that you change the date from December 4 to December 5 so that we can go to bed?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With the unanimous consent of the House- [English]
I hope the hon. member has leave of the House to complete his remarks, which I am sure he intends to do very shortly.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the agreement which the House leader now wants to offend, which is his privilege if he wants to, I will conclude within seven minutes. 1 have spoken for three minutes and I want four minutes from the minister.
What short-term solutions will be acceptable in this dilemma? Is there a way by which we can make the treatment equitable with respect to these tenders and Canadian involvement? Will the minister at the very least extend the same favourable treatment in these circumstances so that Canadian firms can participate? Will the government take a look at providing this very capital-intensive equipment on the three coasts for service both in the private and the public sector?
Supply
Will the minister do some of these things? Will the minister take a look at the questions I have submitted to him, hopefully with the indulgence of the Chair and only a partial eye on the clock, and because of the very serious nature of the questions, will he give us a few answers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was kind enough to send me copies of the questions he would have raised. I think the hon. member and some of his colleagues raised an important point tonight about the tendering methods with respect to Canadian-owned and foreign-owned companies. The nine questions he raised will give me a chance, particularly in the context of Roberts Bank, to examine those matters properly. I will try to do so in the coming days. I will send him a written answer, which he can make public if he cares to.

Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being midnight, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 12.04 a.m., the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to special order.

December 4, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
VIA Rail Canada Inc.
J. Frank Roberts Chairman and President P.O. Box 8116 Montreal, Quebec H3C 3N3
October 29, 1980
Dear Mr. Collenette,
Thank you for your letter of September 9, 1980, and particularly for your comforting comments on the efforts of VIA Rail Canada Inc. to improve railway passenger services in this country.
In your letter, you refer to improved services between Ottawa and Toronto as well as between Montreal and Ottawa; I would like to explain our short and long-term strategies in this regard. On the short term, we are proposing to make schedule and frequency improvements while for the long term we are planning a high performance passenger line between Quebec City and Windsor. I might add that the same philosophy applies to another area of the country with similar potential, namely, Edmonton-Calgary.
The railway passenger service has tremendous potential for being the most popular mode of transport for distances of 100 to 500 miles. Between Quebec City and Windsor, for example, we are contemplating for the long term, a single passenger-dedicated line from Quebec City to Windsor going through Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Such a high performance line would allow speeds of 200 km per hr and could provide travelling times of approximately:
Quebec City-Montreal	1 h 50
Montreal-Ottawa	1 h
Ottawa-Toronto	2 h 40
Toronto-Windsor	2 h 30
Montreal-Toronto	3 h 40
Travel durations of this nature coupled with frequencies of one train per hour throughout most of the corridor would undoubtedly have a very high impact of the market. This would give central Canada a transportation infrastructure with virtually unlimited capacities with regard to the present and expected population densities.
The possibility to link Ottawa to Mirabel in about 45 minutes as well as Toronto to Mirabel in about 3 h 25 also
opens all kind of opportunities for ground transportation acting as a feeder to large airports.
There are still many obstacles to overcome to effect these improvements such as: our relationship with CN and CP, the use of the Mount Royal tunnel as an integral part of this corridor, the construction of a new stretch of line of about 50 kilometres between Smiths Falls and Napanee and the yet to be determined detailed routing between Napanee and Windsor. Nevertheless some of the work could start as early as 1981 should the federal government approve our capital budget. There is still, however, some reluctance on the part of the department and the central agencies to invest in the railway passenger mode to the extent required to make it successful.
With regard to the work being done for improving the Ottawa-Montreal service, we have commissioned Canadian Pacific Consulting Services to perform a study on the rehabilitation of a stretch of line between Vankleek Hill and Ottawa. This segment is common to all routing alternatives of the high performance corridor. We expect to start some line upgrading in 1981 should we receive capital budget approval from the Federal Government soon.
The Ottawa-Toronto service is one that requires improvement as quickly as possible. The high performance line would require line construction as I mentioned above. I would hope that this could be started out in 1982 or shortly thereafter if capital funds are made available. We are also looking at a couple of short-term improvements to reduce travel time between these two capital cities but it is too early to give results; we will consider your alternative.
Your point about seeking parliamentary support for this important project is very well taken. We will be preparing a public relations program in this regard very shortly.
Thank you again for your comments and for your support and interest in railway passenger services.
Yours sincerely,
J. F. Roberts
Mr. David Collenette, M.P.
York East
Parliamentary Secretary
to the President,
Privy Council Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 5, 1980