1980-05-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the Prime Minister's election promise as stated in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Friday, January 25, 1980, that a Liberal government would immediately ensure the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec and the maritimes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That steps be taken immediately to begin construction of this vital and necessary natural gas pipeline extension in order to eliminate our dependency in Nova Scotia on expensive, imported foreign oil which is presently required to generate about 70 per cent of our electrical requirements.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It centres on the problem of the Sydney Steel Company that has been forced to lay off hundreds of workers as a result of antiquated machinery, despite the fact that there is an adequate demand existing at the moment for the product the company manufactures.
in light of the fact that with federal assistance the development of the Donkin Mine in Nova Scotia could reduce eastern Canada's dependence on imported oil and employ something in excess of 1,100 workers, and given the fact that this government has, on numerous occasions, given and then withdrawn
its intention in regard to assistance to both these enterprises, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this government table in the House immediately its plans to assist these two vital enterprises.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Quebeckers who will vote No on the referendum question next Tuesday will indicate their wish for a thorough reform of the Canadian constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson):
That the House indicate its agreement with and support for the promise the right hon. Prime Minister has made, should the No-side win, to set up a process to amend the constitution and renew the Canadian federalism in consultation with the provinces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said "No"?


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recognizing that the restrictions on deductions for child care expenses under Canadian income tax law impose great hardship on wage-earning moth-

May 15, 1980
ers, especially in cases where they are the only source of family income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to review section 63 of the income tax law relating to deductions for child care expenses, in order to provide more realistic allowances to wage-earning mothers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Battlefords, an area serving a population of
30,000	people, has no regular air service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboidt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the Ministry of Transport commence immediate discussions with the town of Battleford, the city of North Battleford, the Northwest Economic Development Council, the rural municipalities of the area and an air carrier to assure regular air service to the Battlefords.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: 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 Minister of Public Works yesterday tabled in the House the analysis on which the government based its decision to move the site for the Department of Veterans Affairs from the Charlottetown waterfront to the centre of that city, and in view of the fact that the analysis is riddled with factual errors, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House condemn the minister for tabling and acting on such a document, and that the minister appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to explain the errors and inaccuracies in that document.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NEW BRUNSWICK-SALE OF ELECTRICITY TO MAINE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
According to recent reports, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has initiated action within his department which would alter an agreement between New Brunswick and Maine whereby New Brunswick sells electrical power to Maine from its oil-fired thermal generating station in Saint John. In view of the fact that the contract has enabled New Brunswick to construct the facility which employs 140 workers, and was entered into in good faith, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the minister assure the province, through this House, that he will not jeopardize either the contract between New Brunswick and Maine nor the future operation of the plant by fiddling with oil subsidies as they apply to generating stations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ANTHEM
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, 1 seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Canada does not have a national anthem, a fact not known by many Canadians, and in light of the fact that the year 1980 has drawn much attention to national unity and to the patriation of the constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Verdun (Mr. Savard):
That this House officially recognize "O Canada" as the national anthem and "God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 15, 1980


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: I rise under the customary provisions of Standing Order 43. On March 6, 1980, the Hon. C. M. Drury, the special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, presented his report and conclusions to the Prime Minister who had appointed him in the first place.
Whereas the reaction of the Prime Minister to this substantial and well-regarded document on a subject which is of the same measure of importance in the Territories as is the referendum in Quebec has been one of complete silence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the northern constitutional issues raised in Mr. Drury's report be brought forward for consideration and debate by this House without further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. The minister is undoubtedly aware that the federal government appears to be in violation of a federal law, a law that ensures equal pay for work of equal value.
Given that this principle cannot be equitably applied until the relative value of all jobs within the public service is determined, can the minister inform the House of the present status of the master evaluation plan which has been under way in Treasury Board for some time? Further, can he assure us that the highest possible priority is being given to the rapid completion of this important work?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 will look into the current status of the report and report back to the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I must express my surprise and alarm that the President of the Treasury Board would not have at his fingertips an answer and knowledge of the state of
Oral Questions
consideration of a report that is so essential to the application of equity and the obedience of the law of Canada within the Public Service of Canada.
Let me direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister may recall, in the throne speech the government indicated that it would "play a leadership role relative to the status of women by implementing affirmative action measures in the public service." Can the minister tell the House today whether those measures will include a move toward compulsory contract compliance?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct in saying that we did make a very firm commitment to pursue the goals of greater equality by using the public service of the federal government as a lead agency. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that we are presently preparing a paper that will be submitted to cabinet, I hope by early summer or late spring, which will contain a number of the options available in the implementation of affirmative action programs.
One of those options is obviously the use of compulsory compliance. We are meeting with American officials who have that kind of program in effect. We also want to meet with people in the private sector, the employers and unions, before we make any firm recommendations. However, it is one of the options being examined. As soon as we complete those kinds of consultations, and cabinet has had a chance to review it, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be notified.


Charles Joseph Clark: I note with interest that the minister promises this matter will come before cabinet in the late spring. I would be interested in knowing when, in his mind, that season occurs. The minister a few weeks ago-in fact, on May 7-indicated, in answer to a question in this House, that his department would be "initiating a number of new programs within a week or two to meet the employment needs of women in the work force."
1 am interested in knowing whether the minister intends to introduce piecemeal programs, one or two at a time, or whether instead he is looking at a comprehensive employment strategy for women. That is what he talked about when a week ago in this House he said that he would be taking measures within a week or two weeks. What we need here is, first, an indication of whether there will be piecemeal programs, or a comprehensive employment strategy for women, brought forward. Second, we need to know precisely on what dates the House of Commons and the public of Canada can expect to have a statement of the policies or the firm intentions of this government in relation to the employment of women.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that when you are a Liberal it is spring all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: That is when the sap runs.

May 15, 1980
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: I would say, Madam Speaker, considering the winter of discontent that the Leader of the Opposition has just gone through, he should probably join in that point of view.
In answer to his question, I would indicate-as I have on several occasions in this House-that we do intend to make announcements on job-creation programs within a matter of two to three weeks. Those job-creation programs are designed to replace or fill the vacuum that was left when many of the programs were cancelled by his government.
At the same time, when we make that announcement we are also undertaking a major review of employment strategies which would suit this country for a decade ahead, which would take a comprehensive look at the labour market needs as we see them in the future. We hope to present a paper to Parliament this year on that sort of comprehensive strategy. In the meantime, we will be introducing programs to make up for what was left in abeyance by the previous government.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have now been told by the minister that spring is any time. We have been given an indication that he would have announcements by late spring, which means the deadline which used to be "soon" or "within two weeks" is now "late anytime".
Would the minister give the House a firm commitment-not a hope, not something he hopes will have happened-as to a date by which the Government of Canada will present to the House of Commons and to the people a clear and comprehensive employment strategy for women in this country?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that his caucus and the opposition itself could be of great assistance in this regard, because they have been debating for an overly long period the employment tax credit program which would be of major assistance in creating employment in this country. To the extent they are prepared to permit bringing that legislation to a vote and getting it on the statute books, we shall be able to go forward with our plans.
As I stated in my previous answer, we intend to make announcements on our further job-creation program within about two or three weeks. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will find it satisfactory and that it will be of great assistance to women. In the longer term, we will be providing a comprehensive strategy to cover not just women but all who have special problems in the workplace.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment mentioned the fact that the Conservative government had cancelled some job-creation programs. He forgot to mention that we had intentions of replacing those programs which were cancelled with what we felt were better programs.
My question is directed to the Minister of Employment. He informed me the other night that he was busy reading the research work I did for his department on employment in the early half of the seventies. There is a document entitled "Reflections on the federal government's role in employment creation." The dilemma posed in that document is whether or not jobs created with tax dollars should go to those who are best qualified but who perhaps do not need them, or whether the jobs he is intending to create should go to those who experience the greatest difficulty in securing employment or have the greatest need for employment. Will the jobs he is bringing down go to those who do not need them, or will they go to those who do?


Lloyd Axworthy: I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member on the evaluations he did for the Department of Employment and Immigration: I think they were of a high calibre, and we appreciate his ability to make assessments. I hope he will find that our job-creation program reflects some of his own thinking and that those evaluations have been of real value.
I must tell him, though, that in this party we do not intend to select one group as against another. Our job-creation program is a mixed program designed to help different problems in the workplace; not simply to zero in on one group, but to provide a mixture of programs to assist those who have special needs in the workplace and also to assist those areas and regions of the country where there are generalized unemployment difficulties.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We have heard a great deal from many ministers on the other side about financial difficulties resulting in limited funds and a consequent need to use dollars in the most effective manner possible. There are three ways to create jobs.


Madam Speaker:: Order please. Would the hon. member please ask his question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would like the minister to indicate to the House of Commons which of the three major methods of job-creation he intends to employ, and what the approximate costs are for creating jobs by fiscal measures, direct subsidization or direct employment creation. Which costs the most in relation to the number of jobs produced, and which of these three mechanisms does the minister intend to employ in the coming months?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would very much like to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member, but as 1 indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, I intend to be able to make a statement in Parliament in two or three week's time when details of that program are completed and the consultations are finished.
May 15, 1980

The hon. member would want to recognize that a comprehensive program of that complexity requires a proper statement by a minister, and not an answer in question period. 1 give the hon. member every guarantee, if he is concerned about the use of dollars, that we will be making the best use of dollars we possibly can within the budget which was set by the previous government.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that the government has received a confidential report, a copy of which I have here, from its officials which makes it clear that neither the government nor Dome Petroleum has adequate plans or technology to prevent and cope with an oil spill resulting from exploration in the Beaufort Sea.
In this light I would like to ask the Prime Minister why the government has just approved this year's drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea. Why is the government, after receiving such a report, prepared to gamble in such a dangerous way with the environmental implications of going ahead with drilling at this time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party would send me a copy of that memorandum in confidence, I would read it with interest. There may be partial information given in some memo expressing one point of view. I do know the matter was discussed in cabinet and that we had assurances from the Minister of the Environment. Not only in this recent time but in previous years, contrary to what that memo says, we had the assurance that technology does exist to take action against any potential spills.


Mr. Fulton:: There is not even a bag of sponges in the Beaufort Sea.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that one of your backbenchers is trying to help you, Ed.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He needs a lot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had the assurance that technology does exist, provided it is exercised at the time of the year when the Beaufort Sea is free from ice. That is the basis of our decision to restrict drilling to certain periods of the year which are ice-free.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I say quite seriously that I would be delighted to send a copy of the report to the Prime Minister because it points out that, quite contrary to regulations, Dome Petroleum had no fewer than 22 fuel spills last year, during the drilling season, which it refused to report or did not report as it was supposed to. The report also says, and I quote: "The government has still not produced its own oil spill
Oral Questions
contingency plan." That is from an important subcommittee of the government.
The report was made recently, and 1 understood that it had in fact been discussed by the cabinet. Is this the case, or is the Prime Minister saying it is not the case? Is the Prime Minister telling us that he does have a contingency plan which did not fail to comply with the regulations last year, and that he has every confidence that we should be proceeding now with drilling in the light of last year's experience with Dome and in the light of what this report tells us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think I will ask the minister responsible, the Minister of the Environment, to deal with the substance of the question. But in so far as my position is concerned in trying to answer this question, I can only point out to the hon. member that if the anonymous civil servant who sent him confidential documents in unmarked envelopes would do me the same courtesy, I might be in a position to answer his questions.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, on seeing newspaper stories about this report, I made some inquiries. Although those inquiries have not been entirely completed, my understanding is that this, rather than being the report of the subcommittee, is the view of one member of that committee. I want to check that further.
Clearly, in considering the drilling proposals brought forward, there was consultation with my officials. In this kind of activity inevitably there is a risk, but it was our belief that the risk involved was supportable within the limits of necessary environmental protection. We are concerned in a continuing way that more research be done into these kinds of problems and we have indicated, or are in the process of indicating, our strong concern to the private sector, to the companies involved, our belief that more research into this kind of potential problem should be undertaken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will go back either to the Prime Minister or to the minister directly responsible. The question should be dealt with by the Prime Minister because my understanding is that the decision to proceed with drilling now was reached in cabinet.
Since the report, to pick up the phrase used by the minister, says that last year "unacceptable risks" were taken, and it seems that the same procedures will be used this year, I should like to obtain, either from the Prime Minister or from the minister responsible, unequivocal assurances that in the government's view the negative opinion expressed in this report is not shared by the government, namely, that they will proceed under circumstances that are very safe to the environment in the north.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier, that my understanding-but I must check it further-

May 15, 1980
Oral Questions
is that this is not the report, but the view of one member of the committee. I have no reason to believe that unacceptable risks have been taken in the past.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ARCTIC WATERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Will he table in the House the report of the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee, and will he also table any previous drafts as well as an explanation of the discrepancies between earlier drafts of the same report and the final report?


John (Moody) Roberts: As I indicated in my earlier answers, there is some uncertainty in my mind as to the exact status of the document to which the Leader of the NDP has referred. Upon seeing newspaper reports which I think are part of the basis of the hon. member's question, I asked that some inquiries be made and information be provided to me.
As to the terms of the question of laying something before the House of Commons, I would much rather know exactly what it is we are referring to, what various stages it has gone through, and whether these are the views of one member of a panel or of the whole board. I need more information before I would consider taking the steps which the hon. member is suggesting.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, in view of the confusion, at least in the minister's mind, surrounding this whole issue and his confusion about the various reports, if the minister will not table in this House the documents, consistent with the freedom of information principle, will the minister at least call before the relevant standing committee of Parliament on the environment, members of the Arctic Waters Advisory Committee so that members of Parliament can pose questions on this matter to these members and get the issue clarified in a way which the minister obviously cannot do himself?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, it is quite clearly not my responsibility to have witnesses called before parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees control their own work and it is not for me to direct them in that activity.



TRANSPORT


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and it deals with the issue of equity in allocating federal economic support programs.
In view of the recent $200 million loan by the federal government to Chrysler Canada, and also the fighter offset program, both of which benefit mainly the economy of central Canada, how can the minister justify the government's failure to accede to the request by Premier Bennett of British Columbia that the federal government provide 50 per cent of the $215 million required to build the rail line which will enable coal from northeast British Columbia to be shipped eventually to Japan, particularly since the federal government would recover all the money advanced back from its share of the surcharge that will be levied on the coal shipments?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, first to answer the question regarding Chrysler, it was not a loan; but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce might wish to explain it further.
On the question of the northeast coal development in British Columbia, we held extensive negotiations with a good number of members of the British Columbia government on this matter. Arguments were put forward from all sides, one of them to the effect that the federal government was not in the habit of contributing to railway development with regard to resources, but a compromise was reached and a good amount of money was indicated as the federal contribution. Details of that are now being further defined.


Pat Carney: My supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Transport, Madam Speaker. The Premier of British Columbia has made it very clear that he considers that the federal government is not in the habit of funding anything to do west of the lakehead.
Since the province of B.C. transferred the administration and control over the Ridley Island site, the port site-B.C. transferred the control to the federal government in order to facilitate the development of the port-and since no development by the National Harbours Board has taken place, could the minister explain his reluctance to give the control back to the province so that the proposed coal port site could be developed in time for coal shipments to Japan to proceed on schedule, which is in the third quarter of 1983?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my impression was that the land at Prince Rupert was federal land in the first place, that there was no transfer in this respect. But be that as it may, the negotiations between the National Harbours Board and the consortium have progressed to the point where an announcement will be made any moment now. All matters of discussion have been resolved and the project will go ahead as planned. So I do not understand the reason for the alarm because, as a matter of fact, everything is in line.



CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to call his attention to the crude blackmail tactics implicit in the announcement from Revelstoke this morning by the executive vice-president of CPR, that the corporation would not proceed
May 15, 1980

with the $322 million expansion project in the Rockies unless the federal government repudiates its statutory guarantee on freight rates to western farmers by reneging on the Crowsnest pass agreement. May I remind the minister that the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -made $158 million more last year than the year before.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Would the Minister of Transport indicate what action he intends to take in the face of such crude corporate blackmail in determining the transportation policy of the Government of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, in view of the possibility of this freeze on the mountain expansion project, and in view of the fact that the Hall report has not been instituted as yet, would the minister assure this House that the Hall report on Crowsnest Pass rates will be implemented, to ensure that this kind of blackmail cannot take place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Crowsnest Pass is a problem which has been with us since 1897.


An hon. Member:: The problem is you guys.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It became statutory in 1925. My information, substantiated by some conversations I have had, is that the mood of western Canada is changing with respect to the Crowsnest.


An hon. Member:: It is not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am planning now to get fully involved in the subject, to consult extensively in the coming weeks and devise a general strategy to cope with this particular issue.
Oral Questions ENERGY



SECURITY OF SUPPLY OF FEEDSTOCK FOR PETROSAR AND SUNCOR

Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the fact that the Alberta government has been less than happy with the fact that Petrosar produces residual fuel as a byproduct of its operation, and also Suncor and other operations in eastern Canada, given the pressure that has been brought to bear by the federal government requiring these companies to do something about this particular problem, and given the fact that Petrosar and Suncor announced today an expenditure of some $500 million to upgrade their facilities, will the minister now be able to get from the Alberta government a commitment giving these operations security of supply of feedstock?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the officials of the two refineries concerned in Sarnia and also Ultramar in St. Romuald, near Quebec City, for their co-operation with the government when we made very strong representations to them encouraging them to upgrade the oil that was going through the refineries, so as to have a much more efficient use of oil in our energy strategy.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, 1 should like to advise him that I have discussed this matter twice already with my colleague from Alberta, and that the Alberta government welcomed the developments I have announced today. Also, I want to assure the hon. member that I have raised with the minister for Alberta the question of the supply to Petrosar in particular, and I was assured again at my meeting early this week that there will be no discrimination against Petrosar.
If Petrosar cannot get supply directly, it can be assured at least that there will be nothing to prevent any person or company supplied with oil by Alberta from reselling to Petrosar. So there is an assurance that no measures will be taken to discriminate against Petrosar in its supply.



EMPLOYMENT


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I am my party's spokesperson on matters relevant to the status of women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: But I want to assure the House that my concerns are broader than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 15, 1980
Oral Questions


Walter Franklin McLean: 1 have had a lifelong commitment to helping people, and it is in that context that I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration about his job-creation plans. Women, young people and natives are the people who are most often unemployed in this country. Would the minister tell us how many jobs he intends to create for women, for young people and for natives? Could he tell us whether the numbers he will be using are targets that he will try to achieve, or will they be firm commitments in quotas which he will meet and which he hopes to exceed?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to begin by complimenting the hon. member on the very important responsibilities he has. As one who shares those responsibilities on the government side, I would say that it is one of the most important tasks of members of this House to ensure that women receive proper, fair and equal opportunities in the work force.


Mrs. Begin:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: In saying that, I would want to point out to the hon. member that he should recognize we are not, in the job programs we intend to announce, exclusively attacking the program in that respect, because there are already in place a number of programs available for those very groups about which he spoke.


An hon. Member:: Don't make a speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have major commitments under the LEAP program to help native people. We have major job-creation programs that are before the House in the employment tax credit program. There are substantial training programs where we have close to 200,000 people in the country being trained under federal government programs. A large percentage of those people are women, young people and native people. So there are already in place a number of very effective programs.
What we intend to do in our announcements is to supplement those programs to deal with special problems in the work place where we have identified them. If the hon. member can wait for a matter of two or three weeks, I think he will be able to see exactly how effective those programs are.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, my question was: How many jobs? In terms of the context of developing this strategy in the next few weeks, and following his confirmation to this House of the appointment of the vice-president of the Liberal party, Lorna Marsden, to an advisory capacity on job creation for women, I wonder if the minister will now tell the House whether that appointment was taken in consultation with the Advisory Council on the Status of Women?


Marc Lalonde: What about Pat Carney?


Charles Joseph Clark: She was elected. You are not accustomed to people being elected in British Columbia.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has a fair degree of independence. It is designed to provide advice to the minister, not necessarily working in reverse. Its advice is very welcome and is very helpful, but it sets its own agenda and its own priorities.
As far as the case of Miss Marsden is concerned, I think it is important to point out to the member that in previous periods Miss Marsden was the chairman of the National Action Committee in this country, one of the foremost pioneers in the area of women's rights, and is one of the foremost demographers looking at the labour market in Canada. It is upon those qualifications that she is judged, and I do not think anyone should be discriminated against just because they are a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Serge Joyal (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the commitment made last night in Montreal by the Prime Minister on behalf of the 74 Liberal members from Quebec, to begin at once the constitutional amendment process, can he inform hon. members how he plans to proceed; that is, does he intend to call a federal-provincial conference of first ministers or, as suggested by the hon. Maurice Lamon-tagne, will be establish a committee which would consolidate the various studies or reports now in existence or published in the past, and does he plan on launching this process even before the House adjourns for the summer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the methods mentioned by the hon. member in his question are indeed among those that we are considering. I am unable to announce today which of these various procedures we shall choose or whether there will be others.
As for the second part of his question, I can assure the hon. member that decisions will indeed be made and steps taken before the summer recess.
May 15, 1980



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of an answer given by the president yesterday in which he stated:
-let me tell him that there are 497 projects now reported upon which show original budgets of $4,752 billion with potential overruns of $1,062 billion.
Would the President of the Treasury Board give the House of Commons a list of those 497 projects that have an anticipated overrun of $1,062 million?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position, nor would I take the time of the House, to furnish that list at this moment. But I will provide such a list to the hon. member. I would like to point out that the $1.062 billion overrun figure which I cited was the total overrun for the 497 projects calculated back to the original budgets. About $500 million of that amount has already received Treasury Board approval as of December 31, 1979. The remainder will require specific Treasury Board approval on a case-by-case basis.
That, I hope, gives the hon. member some indication on how we are moving with respect to those projects. As I said, 1 will not take the time of the House to provide the hon. member with a list, or more detailed information at this time, but I will be happy to comply with that request.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of his statement that approvals are still being made with respect to these possible overruns, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate if he is not, in fact, enforcing Treasury Board circular letter 1979-20 which dealt with cost controls and which specifically said, "Submissions for retroactive approvals will be entertained"? Why is the President of the Treasury Board contemplating approving, post facto, overruns which have been drawn to his attention by departments?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to look into the matter raised by the hon. member. I understand we are looking at projects, some of which are continuing, and we are obliged to examine these on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Treasury Board requirements or in accordance with departmental authorizations where they exist. As I say, I would be more than pleased to furnish the hon. member with a complete breakdown.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



ANTIBIOTIC AND DRUG RESIDUES IN MEAT-ABATTOIR INSPECTION

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister made a statement in a news release regarding the presence of drug and antibiotic residues in meat for human consumption which is federally inspected at abattoirs across Canada. The minister stated in part:
Meat reaching the consumer is entirely wholesome and judging from the facts the system is working very well.
In view of the fact that in a letter which I received from the minister on May 13 he stated that in fiscal 1979-1980 only 781 normal looking beef were tested for antibiotic residues, out of a total beef slaughter of some three million head, and that only 302 normal looking hogs were tested out of a total hog slaughter of some 12 million in federally inspected abattoirs, how can the minister say to the consumers of Canada that as far as the presence of antibiotic and drug residues in meat is concerned, that the inspection system is working very well?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should have written a longer letter to the hon. member.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't make your speech any longer.


Eugene Whelan: After a conversation with the hon. member the other day, I made a double-check and found that there have been tests on over 10,000 different samples. I know that the hon. member knows about this situation better than I, because of his background, which is that of an educated veterinarian-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are there any other kinds?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure that many of the hon. members' colleagues are ignorant of the fact that many farmers classify themselves as amateur veterinarians although they do not have a degree in veterinary education. I am sure that he would also agree that they do a darn good job, because he has worked with such people all of his life.
I challenge the hon. member to challenge those 10,000 tests which have been taken and the educated veterinarians in my department who gave me that information, and I will abide by that information if they tell me that it is one of the most efficient, proficient, in-depth testing programs of any country in the world.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that of the normal cattle tested, nine-tenths of 1 per cent showed traces of antibiotic residue, and of the hogs tested, six-tenths of 1 per cent had traces of antibiotic residue. Even if we include the
10,000	cattle mentioned by the minister, it would mean that some 26,000 additional cattle and some 74,000 additional hogs would have been condemned for the presence of residue. I am

May 15, 1980
Oral Questions
referring to the entire cattle population bought for slaughter and-


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


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: In view of the tremendous additional cost and manpower that would be involved in testing every animal for antibiotic and drug residues, and in order to bring to an end this very difficult problem, would the minister get together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and, under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act, make sure that all animals shipped for slaughter to abattoirs are, in fact, free of any trace of antibiotic or drug residues when they arrive for slaughter?


Eugene Whelan: Again, Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member knows that in the program introduced by the Health of Animals Branch of our department they work very closely with the Department of Health. They are very concerned about this matter. It must be recognized that much of the concern comes from the producer area. I am sure that the hon. member has as much confidence in those producers that they themselves do not want to ship any product to market that will be damaging to anyone. We all have that concern, and my department will be stepping up that surveillance.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Recent reports indicate that a number of men who served in the armed forces believe that they are now suffering from cancer as a result of being exposed to radiation while assigned to duty at atomic bomb explosion test sites in the United States during the 1950s.
Would the minister tell the House the action he is taking to determine the state of health of Canadians who were assigned to duty at those atomic bomb explosion test sites?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, my department has this matter well in hand. Much work as has already been done by our Canadian Pension Commission and the research people in that commission are looking into these cases. There has been some detection, and detection of other people supposedly involved should be made in the near future.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the minister contacted all the people involved, has a program of monitoring their health been approved, and does the government intend to assume the liability which naturally flows as a result of its negligence in not protecting our armed forces personnel at those atomic explosion test sites?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, when the analyses and diagnoses are completed by the people within our department who are qualified, such as doctors, that determination will be made.



TRANSMISSION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER FROM NEWFOUNDLAND-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to which I would like a "yes". The question has to do with the development of the hydro potential on the Lower Churchill River, not with the contract on the Upper Churchill River. In his speech in Toronto on May 6, the minister said:
There will be free flow of goods and services in this country. No province has the right to dictate development outside its borders, and the federal government will fully defend this basic constitutional principle.
The Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister and the government on April 16 asking them to act to ensure the free flow of hydroelectricity out of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, across the province of Quebec to other provinces and customers. He pointed out that for eight years negotiations have gone on with Quebec and no solution has been reached. The two provinces cannot reach a solution themselves.
Would the federal minister tell me whether he is going to take action in the government to ensure that Newfoundland can transmit hydroelectric power across Quebec, without having to sell it to Hydro Quebec, through section 92(10)(c), works for the general advantage of Canada or otherwise. If he is going to take that action, when will he take it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the question had been a little bit shorter, I might have been able to answer by "Yes" or "No", but the way it has been asked I have, first of all, to remind the member that the development of the Lower Churchill-I am sure he is aware of this-remains a matter that is under consideration and study.
We are awaiting a report from the federal provincial group that is examining the feasibility of the project and the economic advisability of proceeding with it. I met yesterday with my colleague, the minister of energy for Newfoundland, and I believe we had a very fruitful meeting. I said that I would get in touch with my provincial colleague from Quebec, whom I have not been able to meet as yet, but we are planning to meet at the end of this month, or early next month, to review this particular subject and some other issues.
I said that I would again be in touch with my colleague from Newfoundland and see what would be advisable, especially once we have received the report that is expected from the joint federal-provincial task force which is examining the
May 15, 1980

advisability of proceeding with the Churchill Falls No. 2, or Lower Churchill project.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. There are 2,500 megawatts of hydro power in the Lower Churchill alone, and this is badly needed so that they can displace the use of oil power, oil-generated electricity in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or in other parts of Canada. It is a question of great urgency.
I ask the minister again, has the government got this under active consideration, and will it treat hydroelectricity-which is a form of energy-in the same way as it treats the interprovincial distribution of oil and gas, that is, as a national project? The provinces cannot block it going across their borders. Will the same principle apply to hydroelectric transmission if there is surplus power in the Lower Churchill that can be sold outside Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the realization of the Lower Churchill project was so evident to the hon. member, I cannot understand why he did not abolish the federal-provincial task force that was studying, and has been studying for a while, the advisability of this project. I have already told him we have to wait for the report of this group as to whether the problem is even likely to arise or not.
Once we have this report, and if the report is positive as to the advisability of proceeding with the project, then obviously we will have to get down to hard negotiations. 1 would hope, however, that both the government of Newfoundland and the government of Quebec, once they have seen that report, will be willing to really sit down and negotiate-as has been the case in the past with every province-the transmission of electricity without any interference and without undue objections or obstacles to the realization of this project.
With us, it is indeed a matter of great concern and high priority. I can assure the hon. member that as far as we are concerned, we will do everything we can to help the two governments involved to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion soon.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want you to act, not the two governments.



CANADA DAY


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance for any nation to have its own national symbols, will the Prime Minister have his government give priority consideration to bringing in a bill prior to July 1 this year to make Canada Day officially known as Canada Day? Also, will the government also consider bringing in a bill to give Canada its official national anthem?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, both of those objectives have been the government's, and I was appreciative of the hon. member's motion in the House a few days ago to attempt to get unanimous consent for such sensible motions. Unfortunately, that consent was not forthcoming, and this is the kind of difficulty-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that leaders of the opposition party are now saying that the objection was on this side.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It sure was today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we perhaps might ask, right at this moment, the unanimous consent of the House to return to these motions and have them voted upon now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Beautiful!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I have to get consent, Madam Speaker, I move to revert to motions, seconded-


An hon. Member:: You can't do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Don't you know the rules?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question period is the time to move motions. I am not sure that I am on proper ground-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I asked for unanimous consent and I heard a lot of "yeses". I thought I had it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi now has his answer: the Tories are opposed to such a motion.


Madam Speaker:: I had notice of a question of privilege from the hon. Solicitor General and I would recognize him now.

May 15, 1980
Privilege-Miss Carney PRIVILEGE



MR. ROBINSON (BURNABY)-RESPONSIBILITY OF SOLICITOR GENERAL TO TABLE REPORTS

Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from a statement made by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in the House yesterday on a question of privilege to the effect that I had failed to supply, as required by law, within five days of the commencement of this session, the annual report of the Solicitor General and the annual report of the Correctional Service of Canada. I left the House yesterday, as I informed the hon. member, because I was attending a meeting of a cabinet committee. I note with regret that he is absent today. He told me that he was returning to his constituency for the weekend.
It is true, Madam Speaker, that I have failed to file these annual reports. I have checked with other ministers and I find that, in general, most of them have been unable to comply with this statutory requirement. In my case, although I regret it, I am doing everything I can to bring the annual reports forward quickly. Last week I signed both annual reports and they have been sent out to be printed but have not been printed yet. As soon as they are I will bring them forward and table them in the House.



MISS CARNEY-ALLEGED COMMENT MADE BY PRIME MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the Prime Minister's remarks which were addressed to me when I was questioning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). During the course of the question, I repeated the remarks of the Premier of B.C. which expressed his frustration in dealing with the federal government on any cost-sharing arrangement. While 1 was asking the question I heard the Prime Minister say, and I am supported by my colleagues: "She talks just like Levesque, always being gypped by Ottawa."
Madam Speaker, as a western MP I find the Prime Minister's remark unacceptable. I am advised by my colleagues that, since it imputes motives to me, it does involve a question of privilege. I should like to serve notice that I am prepared to move a motion that he be instructed to withdraw his remark once your Honour has a chance to check the record.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not have the benefit of the blues here and 1 cannot recall the exact words used by the hon. member in her question, but I did hear her say words to the effect that this federal government spent no money west of the Ontario-Manitoba border. That is the kind of remark which I said is exactly the kind of remark Mr. Levesque makes when he says no money is spent by the federal government in Quebec.
If the hon. lady did not say that or words to that effect, I will withdraw my remark, but I ask you, Madam Speaker, to
give us both time to check the blues. I am quite certain I heard right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, might I ask the government House leader if he could indicate the business for the balance of the week. I understand that it is his intention to designate next Thursday an allotted day. Could he tell us beyond that what his intentions are with respect to business?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow the order of business will be as follows: the first item will be Bill C-27, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, followed by C-15, the Livestock Feed Assistance Act and if we have time. Bill C-28, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
[ Translation]
As far as the business for next week is concerned, the House shall not meet Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 2(3). Tuesday we will be discussing on second reading the Municipal Grants Act and, if possible, the Relocation of Government Agencies Act, also on second reading.
Wednesday, we wish to initiate and hopefully complete the discussion of the old age security legislation, to increase the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens. Thursday, will be an allotted day, and I understand the New Democratic Party will be addressing a matter of their choice.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I could perhaps discuss this later, but in anticipation I wonder if the government House leader might be prepared to entertain discussions with respect to shifting the business to the item which is third in line for Friday, that is to say, from Bill C-28, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, to Bill C-7, to amend the Saltfish Act. It is a matter that I did discuss with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Would he be prepared to consider that change in the event we do reach that stage on Friday?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have no objection to informing my hon. colleague of the reasons why I cannot accept his request.
However, if my colleague objects to Bill C-28 being discussed tomorrow, surely I can compensate by proposing another matter in consultation with him.
May 15, 1980


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I hope that there is still some room for arranging the business tomorrow. The government House leader has taken me a bit by surprise in announcing the farm legislation first. I understood from our discussions this morning that the fisheries legislation was to come first, and that if something was needed to fill up the time, it would be additional farm legislation, and I had advised my colleagues accordingly. Perhaps we could sort that out.
May I confirm that our party is prepared to take Thursday as an opposition day and we shall put down a motion for debate on that day.
I have one other matter I should like to raise with the government House leader. I hope that I will not have to do it every week, month in and month out, throughout this session. As he knows, we do try to co-operate, especially when matters are urgent, and I press upon him the urgency of the legislation that would do something for veterans' widows.
As the House knows, the previous government made a breakthrough in terms of drafting a bill that dealt with this matter. I believe the department is seized of the situation. Last Thursday the House leader told me he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Veterans Affairs when he returned from Holland. I hope that he will bring forward this very urgent piece of legislation within the next couple of weeks.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first part of the remarks made by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is correct that we had discussions this morning to the effect that we were to deal with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. But after that meeting, I had a note from my colleague in the Conservative party saying that he would like to see the Saltfish Act discussed. Unfortunately, this is impossible. I thought that I could then put the fisheries loans act at the end of the day and just bring forward Bill C-27 and Bill C-15. That is why we will be discussing farm bills first, and if necessary the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. If my colleague has serious objections to that, I am willing to consult later on today and find something else for discussion. In any event, those bills were discussed this morning; only the order has been changed. I did this in an effort to accommodate my colleague from the Tory party. I did not think at the time that it would create some inconvenience for my other colleague.
As far as his second point is concerned, I want to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that his remarks will be made known to the minister responsible. I hope that my colleague will not have to ask the question again next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, first may 1 thank the government House leader for the note of assurance in his last remark, namely, the one about the legislation respecting the veterans.
With regard to the rearranging that has been done for tomorrow, I certainly do not intend to make a point of privilege or to raise a fuss about it because the three of us get
Business of the House
along pretty well. But I would remind my two colleagues that when an order of business is changed after we have agreed on it, I wish they would remember that there are three of us involved in these matters. I had discussions with my colleagues involved on farm and fisheries matters, and it just means that we have to change our plans. I hope that we will follow the usual custom of full consultation among all three parties in this House.


Mr. Roche:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask the government House leader when it is his intention to call Bill C-5, the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, for second reading debate. I was under the impression that it had a higher priority than apparently it has.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this bill has priority, and I hope to be in a position to bring that bill forward some time next week or the week after, if possible.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board during today's question period said that he would produce a list of 497 projects having an initial budget estimate of $4.7 billion, but a possible overrun of $1.62 billion. Would the President of the Treasury Board indicate if he intends to table that list later today or at the latest tomorrow?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to find out immediately what work is involved in preparing such information for the hon. member, and I will bring it forward as soon as possible. If it can be done later this afternoon or by tomorrow, I will see that it is done.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, yesterday the President of the Treasury Board, in reply to a request from me that he table a list in the House of all federal government computers connected to the Infodat or Datapac systems, was reported at page 1092 of Hansard to say the following:
Mr. Chairman, following upon the request from the hon. member I have asked for that information to be compiled with a view to tabling it in the House.
Will the minister table that material today or tomorrow?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, again, I am not in a position to furnish the hon. member with a timetable at this point. I told him that such a list was being prepared with a view to its being tabled. My answer will be as it was to the other hon. member, that I will look into the matter and report to him as soon as I know when it can be tabled.

May 15, 1980
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past five Fiscal years, in which Defence Construction (1951) Limited has had a deficit, how much was the deficit and what was the reason why the funding of costs by the Department of National Defence was inadequate to cover the net expense for the year?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1.	1978-79 1977-78 1976-77 1975-76 1974-75


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 233, 313, 349, 351, 379, 607, 646, 665, 679 and 696.
2.	Funding by the Department of National Defence covers Defence Construction (1951) Limited's net Cash expenses such as personnel pay, administration accommodation etc., however, net expenses also include depreciation on furniture and equipment, as well as accrued expenses such as vacation pay for employees and termination pay benefits at cessation of employment which only require funding in future years when they become payable.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of the Solicitor General's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Ministry Secretariat:
(a)	194;
(b)	28.
The Correctional Service of Canada:
(a)	9,545;
(b)	383.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police:
(a) RCMP Members	16,057
Public Service Employees	3,279
19,336;
(b) Police Casuals	1,920
Public Service Casuals	334
2,254.
National Parole Board:
(a)	254;
(b)	21.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Transport (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)	90;
(b)(i)	15,
(ii)	1.
2.	As of March 31, 1980
(a)	92;
(b)	(i)	26,
(ii)	3.
3.	The only significant change made to departmental structure since March 31, 1979, was the integration of research and development with strategic planning. This change resulted in the deletion of the former position of assistant deputy minister research and development and the creation of a new director general research and development position, with the latter reporting to the assistant deputy minister strategic planning.
May 15, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Agriculture (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a)	36;
(b) (i)	9,
(ii)	None.
2. (a) 41, including 2 in acting capacity;
(b) (i)	9,
(ii)	None.
3.	Yes, however it did not affect the number of SX's employed.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Export Development Corporation restrict the assistance it offers to Canadian business in cases where the exports are to countries that are not diplomatically recognized by Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: Export Development Corporation advises: For business carried out by the corporation for its own account, using the corporation's own funds and at the corporation's risk, insurance and guarantees under section 24 and loans and guarantees under section 29 of the Export Development Act, diplomatic recognition is not a factor in determining whether the facility should be provided in the case of a transaction where the risk is purely commercial. However, it has been EDC's practice not to offer its loan services in support of an export transaction to a country not diplomatically recognized by Canada where the creditworthiness of the transaction would require a guarantee by the government of the country involved or by an agency thereof. Transactions which the corporation has undertaken for the government's account following a decision of the cabinet, have involved countries diplomatically recognized by Canada. The transactions in that category are insurance and guarantees under section 27 of the act and loans and guarantees under section 31 of the act, in all of which government funds are used or are at risk.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: The Department of Justice has assigned six lawyers to serve Agriculture Canada, its boards and agencies.
Order Paper Questions CFB GAGETOWN-MILITARY PERSONNEL


Mr. Howie: What was the total number of military personnel stationed at CFB Gagetown on April 1 (a) 1980 (b) 1979 (c) 1978 (d) 1975?


Ursula Appolloni: (a) 3,111; (b) 3,273; (c) 3,271; (d) 2,741.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, to date, did the Department of Labour conduct studies into alternatives to strike action?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: The Department of Labour is continually researching and reviewing innovative ways in which to improve labour-management relations in the federal private sector and in doing so, reduce the incidence of strike and lockout action. Over the past few years, Labour Canada has attempted to improve the industrial relations system through legislative amendments to the Canada Labour Code as well as through a variety of program initiatives. In addition, the mediation and conciliation branch of the federal mediation and conciliation service of Labour Canada has carried out a program of "preventive mediation", involving themselves in the resolution of industrial relations problems which surface during the life of the collective agreement. In an effort to assist existing and potential union leaders to acquire additional knowledge and skills necessary to effectively discharge their collective bargaining responsibilities, the Labour Education Support Program was introduced to provide financial assistance to legally-constituted union organizations in Canada to develop and promote educational activities. These and other initiatives undertaken by Labour Canada are aimed at fostering a sense of joint responsibility in making the industrial relations system work more efficiently and with less disruption.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	During the year (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1979, how many civilian personnel were employed at CFB Borden?
2.	For the same years, what was the total number of military personnel stationed at CFB Borden?


Ursula Appolloni: 1.	As of April 1
(a)	1,403;
(b)	1,813;
(c)	1,591.
2.	As of April 1
(a)	3,141;
(b)	3,352;
(c)	3,283.

May 15, 1980
Supply


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Agriculture for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the National Capital Region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Eugene Whelan: 1. 18.
2.	(a) 17;
(b)	1;
(c)	None.
3.	8.
4.	$85,000.94.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David Michael Collenette: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 14, consideration in committee of Bill C-29, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981-Mr. Johnston-Mr. Francis in the chair.
On clause 2-
The Chairman:: I believe the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has three minutes left of his time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but the President of the Treasury Board is not here to question. Oh, he just came in. I hope my three minutes will not be docked for the minister's tardiness in arriving.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It being Committee of the Whole, the procedures are such that the hon. member has the floor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yesterday I quoted from a book written by the current President of the Treasury Board called "Fiscalamity". He was kind enough to send me this morning a copy of the revised version of his text which is entitled "How to Survive Canada's Tax Chaos, by Donald J. Johnston". On the front cover it says "Should be required for every Member of Parliament". The minister in his note to me recommended that I read the author's note, which I had the opportunity to do. I want to quote to the minister one sentence from page 9 which reads as follows:
The growing list of government "white elephants" that have consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars, the failure of government to establish and abide by accepted financial controls as illustrated by the recent revelations of the Auditor General, the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our "civil servants" which are virtually unmatched in the private sector, and the seeming disregard for the people's priorities, have all contributed to an attitude of hostility towards governments at all levels.
May I ask the minister whether he feels that the phrase "the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our 'civil servants' which are virtually unmatched in the private sector" describes the situation in the public service for which he is responsible?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did take the liberty of forwarding a copy of the latest edition of that book to several members on the other side so that they would not be charged with infringement of copyright by using photocopies of an earlier publication. The phrase referred to, relating to civil servants, I believe was valid at the time those remarks were written, which is some years ago. I only have to refer the hon. member to the Conference Board study which was published this week. It in fact shows that the public sector is now lagging behind the private sector. As I indicated yesterday, I think that a number of the views expressed there were valid. I am delighted to see that improvements have been made and I am sure the hon. member would agree with that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Chairman, the author's note was dated December 21, 1976. May I ask the minister whether he is saying to us today that the comment he made referring to "the unacceptable level of remuneration, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our civil servants" is no longer applicable and no longer valid in any way at the federal level?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the information I had before me at the time I was writing those comments had to do with a public perception, and had not only to do with the federal civil service. I believe the hon. member referred to a growing list of white elephants. I was thinking of a number of projects where there had been cost overruns not only federally, but provincially and municipally right across this country.
I can assure the hon. member that at the time those words were written in December, 1976, I was quite conscious of some of the cost overruns being experienced in my own city with respect to the Olympic projects. When he asks if I share or believe in those same comments today, I cannot remember the
May 15, 1980

specific instances, persons or quotes that I was referring to in December, 1976, but that was a perception of the public. I was pointing out how the public was concerned with how their tax dollars were spent. They want value for money. That philosophy is shared, I hope, by everybody in this House, including the hon. member. That is what we in Treasury Board are going to achieve.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on the estimates, not having spoken in this chamber for almost a year. I wish to direct some of my questions to the Minister of Transport. I will wait and see whether he needs any officials.
I welcome this opportunity to talk about the concerns of the constituency of South West Nova, concerns regarding transportation and how they relate. The Department of Transport is well aware of some of the concerns that any member of Parliament from that area would have. In particular, we have CN Marine which operates three ferries out of ports in that area. We are concerned about the direction CN Marine will be taking in this new Parliament along with the Department of Transport in order to provide better service to and from Nova Scotia to Saint John and Maine.
Today I want to talk about a couple of areas, Via Rail and the arrangements that have been made to provide service from Halifax to Yarmouth. I congratulate Via Rail. It is a Crown corporation that was given its powers during the time 1 was in office. I would like to ask about the financing of this one-year program that will come into effect in June.
I would like the minister to direct his attention to the Via Rail set-up in the area between Halifax and Yarmouth, going through the valley, and to tell me the cost that the department or the CTC will have to bear for the new arrangements to see whether the service will be improved and whether people will use it. The fact that there will be a return service daily as well as reduced fares, which I and many groups have advocated, will encourage people to use the service. This should be an energy saver for the province.
The next area of concern is the highway upgrading agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government which was entered into in early 1978. The purpose of that agreement was to upgrade and reinforce the highway in Nova Scotia. South West Nova was quite fortunate-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. If I understand the hon. member's remarks properly, she now seems to be directing her remarks and possible questions to the Minister of Transport. As I understand it, the general understanding was that we would be dealing with the President of the Treasury Board, and when questions had ended with respect to that minister, we would then shift to another of the possibly three other ministers.
There is likely to be utter confusion if speakers direct questions to various ministers, and I should like a ruling. Are we going to deal with the President of the Treasury Board or
Supply
do we shift to somebody else? As I indicated last evening, I sense an inference that people, especially on the government side, and, possibly, in the NDP, were wanting to shelter the President of the Treasury Board, that somehow they had no questions for the President of the Treasury Board; they were not concerned about spending levels in this country or about rising deficits. If the hon. member is saying, in effect, that she has no concern about the cost overruns which have been revealed, no concern about these rising expenditures, I think we should get the air cleared. Is it not true that we are supposed to be dealing with the President of the Treasury Board in Committee of the Whole at the present time? If so, let's get on with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member for York-Peel is a little "off' in his understanding of what is happening.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You speak for yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall tell the hon. member for York-Peel that we are now discussing in Committee of the Whole clause 2 of the bill and clause 2 provides for fractions of every estimate in the book. So any member who gets the floor can speak to any aspect of the estimates he wishes.
As opposition parties we have said we would like four ministers to be here-the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In other words, we cannot complain if the other ministers are not here, but the member who gets the floor nevertheless has the right to speak to whatever section of the estimates he pleases. Having spent yesterday with the President of the Treasury Board we have decided that our speakers who get the floor today, in their turn, will deal first with the Minister of Transport, then with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and finally with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I believe Your Honour will have to recognize, considering what we are debating under clause 2 of the bill, that that procedure is perfectly in order, and so is the hon. member for South West Nova.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Chairman, I wish to confirm what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. 1 am sure the hon. member for York-Peel has inadvertently forgotten the rules.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Oh, no. Agreements mean something over here.


David Michael Collenette: First of all, the rule is that on consideration of an appropriation bill in Committee of the Whole it is within the right of any hon. member to question any minister. The hon. member spoke about agreements. It was agreed among the House leaders that the opposition would designate several ministers whom they would like to question intensively. Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board was here all afternoon. Other ministers were present but there were indications from the other side that they wanted to stay with the

May 15, 1980
Supply
President of the Treasury Board. I scurried around during the question period making sure that things were properly organized. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be here at 4.30, the Minister of Transport is here now, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be here at five o'clock and remain until ten o'clock this evening to answer questions. Basically I am supporting the agreement made between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the House leader for our side and the House leader for the Conservative side.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I am hoping we can minimize these comments. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Alexander:: On the point of order, I am somewhat amazed at the steps the government is taking in order to protect the President of the Treasury Board. As I understand it, and as a matter of fact, your list indicates-


An hon. Member:: Question!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you smarten up? There is no question. I am on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance. I thought you were leaving.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, 1 am leaving. Sometimes I have mixed emotions about that. What I noticed was this. We see the President of the Treasury Board sitting with his officials, which gives some indication that he is rarin' to go. He was prepared to go on but it is only the President of the Treasury Board who is going as far as the agreement is concerned. As I understand it, there is an agreement in existence right now that it is the President of the Treasury Board who was to be questioned today, notwithstanding what the hon. member to my left has said.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, the committee now has before it consideration of clause 2 of the estimates. The hon. member for South West Nova has the floor. Before the adjournment last night I understand there was an agreement, as recorded in Hansard, concerning the ministers who would be present today. I am not privy to any other details of that agreement except that the Chair has taken note of the fact that certain ministers, by arrangement, would be present in the House, and two of those ministers are here at the present time. It seems to me the Chair has no other course than to recognize the hon. member for South West Nova and she has the right to place whatever matters she wishes before the committee at this point.


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


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil to be as brief as possible.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite brief. I merely want to remind the House that my colleague opposite when he was minister made his officials answer in committee while today he is asking the opposite. I wonder how he can do so now.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order, please. I am sure hon. members are anxious to proceed with consideration of the estimates presently before the committee. The hon. member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I will continue my remarks concerning the upgrading of highway agreements entered into by the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government early in 1978. When I was interrupted I think I was saying-it is hard to recapture one's trend of thought-that the purpose of the agreements was the upgrading and reinforcing of the highway system in Nova Scotia and, in particular, the 100 series-101 and 103-which are directly related to South West Nova.
I would like to find out from the minister what has taken place under the agreement, how much money has been spent by the province and how much the federal government has contributed. At the same time there are many areas through the southern part of the province which are getting better highways affording better access to and from Halifax and the southern end of Nova Scotia.
Before asking further questions concerning the highway agreement, I wonder whether the minister could tell me how much has been spent, how much is to be committed this year, how much is left under the agreement, and which projects have been agreed to under the agreement for the coming season. I ask these questions as I believe we are entering the final year of the agreement. Perhaps I could have the answers before proceeding further.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, 1 must admit to feeling a little solitary at the moment. I would appreciate it if my hon. friend would kindly continue her remarks as I would like to make a number of comments before proceeding to answer specific questions which she raised. So if she would do so, I would appreciate her continuing her remarks. I assure the hon. lady that I am making extensive notes.


Coline M. Campbell: I thank the minister. I hope he remembers the questions. They were about Via Rail and the amount of subsidy. On the highway upgrading agreement it was particularly with respect to the amount spent to date by the federal government in contrast to the cost-sharing agreement. In addition, what highways will be upgraded in the future, particularly as they relate to South West Nova?
I would also like to go back to the decision to go from Kingston down through the valley to Annapolis Royal. At that time there was much concern among the people in the valley- both pro and con-as to the route. Most people would like to
May 15, 1980

have a highway. I think it is an understated fact that the highway must proceed. However, at the time the decision was made it seems to me that under the agreement the decision to decide on the highway was left with the province, as it is the right of the province to make those decisions.
Is the minister aware of any environmental impact study which was done at the time? I think this came under the provisions of the environmental protection assessment, which should be done because it was a funding government agency giving money to the province. If so, were there concerns on the part of the federal government regarding environmental aspects with respect to where the highway was going?
I take it the minister's officials are coming. I would like to know what role the federal government played in the environmental study and what federal departments were involved in the environmental impact study.
I will go on to another transportation aspect which concerns me, and that is buses. About the same time that the highway upgrading agreement with the province was being entered into, the minister of transport of the day, the Hon. Otto Lang, brought forward a bus improvement plan. I would like to know what has been spent under that program-particularly in Nova Scotia-toward getting a more effective bus service.
1 would also be interested in knowing what has been spent under the municipal airport improvement program which was brought in at the time.
The last thing I suppose one should talk about is transportation in the southern end of Nova Scotia. The people of Nova Scotia have always been very concerned about how to get from Nova Scotia to the United States or New Brunswick and about going to or from Halifax. Transportation has become a very important aspect in the lives of individuals in the southern end of the province.
I would like to know if the minister is prepared to proceed at this time to give me any answers. If he is not, I am sure I could go on to talk about the Bluenose, but before getting into the matter of the Bluenose I would like to get answers on the matters I have already discussed in terms of the local problems of South West Nova and the rest of southern Nova Scotia. 1 can talk quite a lot about transportation, but I would like to hear what the minister has to say.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like first to make some very brief and general comments on the 1980-81 estimates I am introducing today. After that I shall attempt to the best of my knowledge to answer some of the questions, while officers from my department try to find the figures for each of the items referred to by the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).
Mr. Speaker, the 1980-81 estimates for the Department of Transport show a net expenditure requirement of about $1,852 million or 3.1 per cent of the total federal government estimates, which will give an idea of the importance of the department. The $1.8 billion include $1,595 billion for the
Supply
department proper and $253.7 million for the Canadian Transport Commission.
Departmental needs increased $156 million over 1979-80, or 10.9 per cent. The main increases are on personnel expenditures.
The authorized number of person-years for the department is 20,747, as compared to 21,147 for last year. It will therefore be realized that the number of my officers is decreasing. 1 shall make some of these points later on while answering some specific questions.
The Departmental Administration Program totals $80.9 million, reflecting an increase of $11 million over last year. The main capital expenditures in that program are for the Coast Guard College in Sydney, Nova Scotia, with a total estimated cost of $19.5 million, including $8.3 million for 1980-81.
There is also the Transport Training Institute in Cornwall, Ontario, with a total estimated cost of $61.3 million including $4.5 million on the 1980-81 budget. These two projects will be or should be completed in 1981-82.

The second item in my budget has to do with marine administration, and that is for an amount of $356 million. Here we have an increase of $35.4 million over 1979-80. Of this increase, $13.9 million relates to higher operating costs and $13.5 million to increases in the capital program.
There are two major projects of significance with respect to the national harbours board, of which my hon. friends are all very much aware, and those are the Roberts Bank development at the port of Vancouver and the Ridley Island development at the port of Prince Rupert. These are two very important matters which have been in the news recently, and I hope that there will be questions on them.
The third item of importance to an hon. member at whom I am looking at this moment is the air transportation program. Here we see an increase of $39.9 million over the 1979-80 estimates, but-and please notice this very carefully-the increase is mainly attributable to operations and maintenance items, mainly salaries and price adjustments. It is important to underline that fact.
I want to underline further the fact that the capital budget for the air program is $124.6 million.
I look at hon. members from the Hamilton area. That capital budget is down from 1979-80 by $3.7 million. The budget of the air program has now decreased annually since 1975-76 when the estimates level was $245 million. I want to observe that because I am developing the reputation of being rather tight and Shylockish about airport developments. It is rather useful for the Canadian public to be aware that the amounts of money in the budget are on the way down, not on the way up, so consequently when distinguished members of this assembly come up with suggestions that the number of airports should increase, that facilities should be built all over

May 15, 1980
Supply
the place and that radar should be doubled up and improved, there are limitations to that.
I do not want to cry here this afternoon on the floor of the House. It is not the right thing to do.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just want to inform hon. members. My hon. friends might ask me the reason for the reduction in the capital program on the air side. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the number of projects has been completed, and they are important ones. I am thinking about Calgary and Mirabel, built in recent years. A number of programs have been postponed because of controversy, and I am thinking about Pickering, for example, and the general restraint program of the government. So I want to emphasize this fact again to prove that it has limitations. Sometimes when I answer questions in the House I have the feeling that the demand is bottomless and ceilingless with regard to airports that could be built or improved.
The final section of my estimates has to do with the surface transportation program. There is a lot of money here because half of the departmental estimates are in this section. We see here an increase of S70.3 million over 1979-80, for a total of S802 million.
With reference to the speech made by the hon. member for South West Nova, $52 million is attributable particularly to Via Rail. Attributable to the payment for the urban transportation assistance program is $26.7 million, and the amount attributable to the acquisition or leasing of hopper cars is $10.8 million. These amounts are partially offset by reductions in other programs, the largest being the highway improvement program where you find reductions of $12.6 million in the Atlantic highway strengthening program, $16.5 million for the prairie highway improvement program, and $10 million for the western northlands program.
We will have somewhat of a philosophical debate here because it seems to me-and my hon. friend on the other side, the hon. member for Joliette, might agree-that there has been a developing trend in Canada according to which the two levels of government should not try, whenever it can be avoided, to do the same thing. Most of these highway development programs have to do with intraprovincial road development, and consequently hon. members will see a decline in that area, so that the federal government will have money to allocate on projects of a federal nature. It is a very difficult decision to make and I expect to be chastized occasionally by members of the House for not being sufficiently sympathetic to local situations. That is a point of constitutional philosophy or theology which one might bear in mind when criticizing the Minister of Transport.
I have a few notes on the urban transportation assistance program which is so popular with members of Parliament. It is included in the estimates with $57.7 million as compared with $31 million. The money on this one is going up. As is well
known, this program provides assistance for urban transit capital projects as well as the construction of railway grade separations under the terms of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. Again hon. members see $57.7 million only, but the demand is unbelievable. It seems that in recent years every major municipality in Canada worth its salt has had an urban development plan, including a railway crossing, grade separation and relocation, and to do all that my department had only $57.7 million. Again I am trying to assess the possibilities in relation to the demand.
Support to rail passenger services in Canada, including assistance to employees affected by the establishment of Via Rail Canada in March of 1978, is provided for under the amount of $424.3 million, which compares with $277 million last year. There is a very substantial increase here.
I point this out to the committee so that hon. members will be in a position to assess where the money is going. Much of that money is going to Via Rail. I want to emphasize immediately the fact that, out of the $424 million, $307 million is for operations and $117 million is for capital projects. This is equipment that Via Rail is acquiring. Some of it is LRC, that is, a light, rapid and comfortable train system which has been developed by the Bombardier-MLW-Alcan group and others. 1 point this out in an effort to indicate where the money allocated to the Department of Transport was going.
If someone else would like to make a little speech now it would give me an opportunity to collect my notes to answer the specific and detailed questions asked by the hon. member for South West Nova.


Mr. Gamble:: Mr. Chairman, my line of questioning and my comments this afternoon are directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I wonder if he could indicate whether he is acquainted with the proposal that has been made by Michael Pitfield, the clerk of the Privy Council, with respect to the employment of an electronic transfer of funds system, and if he is, does he contemplate the establishment of such a system?


Donald James Johnston: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not acquainted with that project. 1 do not have the information with me and, as the hon. member knows, I do not have my officials with me at present because we are alternating officials between the Department of Transport and my department. But if the hon. member would like me to obtain that information, I shall be pleased to do so within the next several minutes.


John Albert Gamble: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I would be in a position to explain some of the advantages of the proposal that has been made with respect to the implementation of the electronic transfer of funds system.
One of the most intriguing advantages of this system would be the potential elimination of what at one time the clerk of the Privy Council indicated to be in the neighbourhood of
60,000	public service positions. 1 am fully aware of the great reluctance of the President of the Treasury Board to speak in terms of goals or target numbers, but having regard to the fact that most of these positions might well be in the postal service
May 15, 1980

of Canada, and having regard in particular to the fact that we might be faced with a strike in the public service as it relates to the postal service, I wonder whether, under those circumstances, it might not be advisable to examine the potential use of the system.
While the President of the Treasury Board is awaiting his officials so they might acquaint him with this system, let me recount an incident which occurred yesterday in my office relating to a constituent with whom I had been dealing for about three weeks. Near the end of April this constituent was in need of a substantial refund cheque from Revenue Canada-1 am sure the President of the Treasury Board is well acquainted with the delays that take place when those cheques are in issue, and he communicated with me. 1 had a promise from the deputy minister in Revenue Canada that my constituent would receive the refund in the mail on or before May 10. Of course, the cheque did not come and I was once again confronted with a concerned and upset constituent.
Thereupon I communicated again with the office of the deputy minister of Revenue Canada, taxation division, to find out the explanation; it went something like this. From and after May 23 various other government departments, dispatching much-needed pension cheques and family allowance cheques, decided that it would be more appropriate if their cheques were dispatched in a priority situation over regular revenue refund cheques. Under the circumstances they opted to use the facilities of the postal service in priority to the use of that service by Revenue Canada.
It appears that the emergency which was implanted as a consequence of the fear of a postal strike has passed and now the cheques can be issued. But it strikes me that under the circumstances the dispatch of cheques of this nature, together with the dispatch and transfer of funds generally, might well be undertaken through this system. I suggest it is incumbent upon the President of the Treasury Board to examine the implications and the apparent advantages. He should undertake to place before the House an explanation as to why, if after examination it appears appropriate and advisable, such a system is not in fact put in place.
I can well understand the concerns of some members of this House, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in seeing that those people for whom he so often speaks, the pensioners, cannot receive regularly in an efficient fashion the cheques upon which they so desperately depend. It may well confront the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with a bit of a dilemma when he realizes that, in order to implement a system which is both efficient and effective, it may well occur that members of CUPW may not have the same numerical strength they had before.
I am reminded of a comment made by the President of the Treasury Board in the House on May 12 when he said the following:
Supply
I have been particularly heartened to encounter in the public service of our country dedicated, competent, and responsible people who share my objective of good management and my determination to achieve it.
I recall receiving just the other day a letter from one of my constituents, a company called Con-Drain Co. Ltd. from Concord, Ontario. Earlier that company had written to me complaining about postal service which took 11 days for the transmission of a letter the great distance of four miles. Of course, I communicated directly with the Postmaster General raising my concern at the tardy mail delivery. As a result of that response, the delivery of mail deteriorated, if one can imagine it. Now I have a letter dated May 7 in which my constituent indicates the following:
You will note that the dates on these being April 15, April 30, May 1 and May 5-
The date of the letter addressed to me was May 7. It continues:
The first three were posted at Don Mills, the fourth and the one with the fastest service was posted in Montreal.
It took a full three weeks for the delivery of a letter. I presume these are the same people for which the President of the Treasury Board has such dedication. The state of the public service in this country is deplorable. The Auditor General has commented on that.
Earlier in the House I had occasion to direct some questions to the President of the Treasury Board with respect to this very issue. The remarkable response I received was that, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I would be in a position to in some way magically rectify the absurdities with which we are confronted. That is like suggesting that, as a result of something we might do here today, we can affect the outcome of the battle of Waterloo.
There is absolutely no possibility that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as it is presently structured under the rules of this House, can do anything but agonize over the past. The President of the Treasury Board well knows that because he was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the last House.
It is no answer to praise the public service. Doubtless there are thousands of competent, dedicated, hard-working people therein, but what 1 fail to hear from the President of the Treasury Board is one word of condemnation for those who in fact do not do their jobs, for those who perpetrate the kind of slovenly service to which I just made reference. At some point in time the President of the Treasury Board must acknowledge his responsibility for the control of the public service in Canada and do something concrete, other than coming to the House and saying, "1 find in the public service people for whom I have nothing but the greatest of praise". I know it is easy and it may be delightful for members of the House who have public servants in their constituencies to praise them regularly, but when will the President of the Treasury Board, and indeed his other colleagues, come to recognize that there is a higher good and a greater demand placed upon government by the people of Canada who are offended by the way in which they are served by the public service? We need a concrete

May 15, 1980
Supply
proposal for the way in which we ferret out incompetents and those who perpetrate inefficiency, and in fact dismiss them.
In the last Parliament I had occasion to question the chairman of the Public Service Commission. At that time I was told that before 1978 the Public Service Commission had gone to the Treasury Board with specific recommendations for rooting out incompetents and dismissing them. We discovered that it took 15 months, under the worst of circumstances, to get rid of someone who was not performing adequately. The public deserves a break, not only those who work for the government. Unfortunately when the whole public service recognizes that there is no disadvantage to being slovenly and there is no disadvantage for not performing, it becomes infectious and spreads like a cancer throughout the whole system. It is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board to do something about it. Quite frankly it is insulting to members of the House to have the suggestion made that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will in some way rectify the error and solve the problem.
1 now see that the President of the Treasury Board has before him the gentleman for whom he has been waiting. Presumably I may get some answers now to the first questions I asked.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, regarding the first question that was asked, the question of electronic fund transfer apparently is being actively discussed between the Department of Supply and Services and the Canadian Bankers' Association. It would appear that the responsibility for carrying this forward rests with the Minister of Supply and Services.
My understanding is that before such a system can be introduced, we must await certain amendments to the Bank Act in order to pay Canadian banks for the services that would be rendered in that regard. But I cannot help but respond to some of the comments made by the hon. member. I have the impression that he was not here yesterday, otherwise he would have heard my comments with respect to management practices and the improvements which we are actively pursuing and intent on introducing. I think that any one of us is prepared to condemn any particular person who does not do his job, whether it be in the public service or in the private sector.
If I at any time left the impression that I was not critical of people who do not perform, I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that that is not what I intended. The point is that his analysis, like that of my predecessor in office, the hon. member for York-Peel, is simplistic in the extreme. The hon. member for York-Peel intended to solve the problem of efficiencies in the public service by eliminating 60,000 employees with one bold stroke of the pen. We all saw how far that program got him. We know what kind of moral problems it created and how ineffective it was as a technique of dealing with hard-working people who were wondering and asking, "When is the axe going to fall?" As a result the hon. member for York-Peel became known across this country as the "happy slasher".
I want to assure the hon. member that we have no intention of following irresponsible policies of that kind. If the hon. gentleman is concerned about agonizing over the past, which he has said he intends to do in the public accounts committee, then he should be at home in those circumstances because that is the cornerstone of Conservative philosophy-agonizing over the past.
What we are trying to do is establish sound management practices in this government for the future, to introduce the Lambert commission recommendations, to establish accountability and to be able to ferret out inefficiencies where they occur, but not at the expense of destroying what is probably what is one of the finest public services in the western world and acknowledged as such by most foreign observers. I suggest that the hon. member cease indulging in what I regard as irresponsible charges and get down to finding out what the facts are for himself. He should meet with the Auditor General, examine the studies and the methodology in order to ascertain whether the studies made by the Auditor General were appropriate under the circumstances.
The hon. member has had that opportunity, but unfortunately he was not available for a meeting with the Auditor General which I convened. I am sure, though, that he will have that opportunity before the public accounts committee, and that is the forum in which those issues should be raised.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the President of the Treasury Board that I was in this House and that I did hear his explanations yesterday. It is for that very reason that I raise the matter again. It seems that it is impossible for the President of the Treasury Board to bring forward anything concrete that will change the course of the history which he and his government has set for the people of Canada.
With respect to the answer which the minister gave us earlier, can he tell the House whether or not the required changes in the banking system have in fact been incorporated in the draft bill which is presently before this House? If the answer to this question is yes, as I suspect it will be, let the President of the Treasury Board explain why it is necessary to establish the cost factors that are involved in making payments to the chartered banks.


Donald James Johnston: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I will verify the stage of the proposed amendments to permit that service to be carried forward to which I made reference, and I will report back to the hon. member.


John Albert Gamble: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, there was a direction from the Treasury Board which is dated, I believe, July 19, 1979, which penalized government departments for cost overruns. Is that program and that direction still in place?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is still in place.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, my comments and questions are directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to speak very briefly and then ask some questions about the minister's plans for the Toronto international airport and some of the
May 15, 1980

proposals which I have heard for its expansion in the near future. I would like to begin by referring to what I consider to be a good balance between the community and the airport. The balance is somewhat uneasy whenever aircraft change their flight patterns or come in slightly lower; then the community worries. Whenever rumours start that a fourth runway will be built, the community worries. Whenever rumours start that additional pressures and additional numbers of aircraft will be used, the community worries.
On the other hand, we enjoy having the service. Our riding receives 12,000 jobs directly and all the benefits which come with them from that airport. We certainly do not want to lose those jobs or the benefits. At this stage, however, I think that the people living in Mississauga, Peel and western Toronto need some additional assurances. We have heard that additional ground level facilities will be put in place. The general manager of the airport has spoken to a couple of our community groups and outlined the various proposals.
At the time the general manager stressed that these proposals are still in the discussion stage. They include facilities for a hangar for Wardair, a possible location of terminal three, which is a passenger facility, additional aircraft taxiways and additional cargo facilities. Some time ago a commitment was made to the residents of western Toronto and Peel that a fourth runway would not be added at Toronto International Airport. That commitment was taken very seriously by local planners. They allowed homes to be built near the airport in places where the noise and the fumes were not serious. They placed industry in other less suitable, less desirable areas.
The residents who purchased homes close to the airport do not now want to live under a fourth runway. Therefore, would the minister describe in detail the expansion plans that he knows of for Toronto airport, and could he give us some assurances that these plans will not add to the growth patterns for aircraft at that airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for South West Nova. She asked a great number of questions which will require some detailed answers.
The first series of questions had to do with CN Marine. Three contracts have been approved with regard to ferries. The first contract is Digby-Saint John, which will receive a subsidy of $3,772 million. The second contract is for Yarmouth-Bar Harbour, Maine. This is a summer service and the run which is made by the Bluenose. The level of subsidy is $2,362 million. The third contract is Yarmouth, Nova Scotia to Portland, Maine, which is a year-round freight carrier, and has a subsidy level of $4,542 million. Those are the figures for 1980, and they are at about the same level as the figures for the previous year. I understand that there is no major change.
The second point which the hon. member raised was with regard to the operations of VIA Rail in her area. Here we have a current subsidy for trains between Yarmouth and Halifax of $1,529 million. Apparently CTC decided last fall-there is no way that I can have all these facts in my mind; I need my
Supply
officials to help me-to look at the service on an experimental basis. This is presently being done and it is being handled by VIA Rail. VIA Rail is going to report with a detailed analysis of the experiment soon. It is not yet available.
Now we come to the third question which concerns highway upgrading in Nova Scotia. As the hon. lady said, it is a program which was initiated in 1977-78. It is a shared-cost program on a fifty-fifty basis between the Government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia, each government putting in $32 million for a three-year period. The government have still to pay to Nova Scotia $3.57 million in 1980-81 to meet the federal commitment. A number of projects come under this program but the bulk deals with highway 101.
On the subject of environmental safeguards which the hon. member raised, this is really left to the responsibility of the provinces. No environmental commitment was made in the agreement itself, although I understand that a report on alternative routes was prepared by the province. I understand that hearings and public meetings were held in the area and that the cabinet of Nova Scotia approved the northern route and so on. The idea is that the federal government provides the money and the provincial government takes care of the environment.
The fourth area of questioning had to do with a bus program which exists in Nova Scotia. The level of support is $4 million, and $2 million has already been committed. It is my understanding that this program was dropped by the previous administration. I think there was some justification for this. Coming back to what I said a moment ago-I am being totally non-partisan-there must be a limitation to the degree of involvement of the federal government at the local level. This is not a reflection on those who have used this program. I am delighted that they found it useful but it seems to me that this may not be the best use of public funds and of the federal government as an institution.
Be that as it may, it seems to have been dropped. I am going to try to find out if, for the purpose of being honourable, we could not find some unspent money in other programs to dedicate to this particular one so that at least we will end en beaute without having reneged on some good federal commitments. You see how accommodating I can be, Mr. Chairman.
There was also reference to the urban transportation assistance program as a general program. I have a few words of information on that. The Nova Scotia share of this UTA program is $8,287 million. There has been one large project funded under UTAP which is now under construction. It has to do with a maintenance facility for the Halifax-Dartmouth regional transit commission; total estimated cost is $7.1 million. The federal contribution is $5.6 million. There are five other projects on Nova Scotia's primary list and four projects on their secondary list which have been given approval in principle. All this is to say that Nova Scotia appears to be making good use of the urban transportation assistance program.
1118

May 15, 1980
Supply
The big difficulty I have, as the hon. member for South West Nova is aware, is the simple fact that this program is not funded at a level needed to proceed with the amount of work that municipalities from Vancouver to Halifax would like to see. This is regrettable but there are, unfortunately, limitations.
The hon. member also mentioned something about small airports. I do not know if she had a particular airport in mind but I thought the question was fairly general. She asked what was spent on municipal airports in Nova Scotia. I find that in Nova Scotia, for Liverpool it is $57,600; Waterville, $56,000; Digby, $80,200; Trenton, $183,100; in Debert, $60,500.
The capital funding aspect of this program was shot down in August, 1978, but the operations aspect is still alive at the level of $10.7 million. This is to support the operations at small airports. However, the capital funding no longer exists.
Members of the House who have such projects will regret this but "to govern is to choose", and there are so many major expenditures in major airports for which the federal government has stronger responsibility and which need capitalization for equipment that the federal government had to slow down its involvement in municipal airports.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his answers on South West Nova. 1 wonder if we could come back now to the Toronto international airport. I was intrigued by the minister's comment that he has to take money away from small airports to spend on needed projects in big airports. I want to assure him that if he has to slow down expansion plans at Toronto international, then I and the residents in my area will help him do that.
I asked the minister whether the extension of ground facilities at Toronto international would lead to expanded use of the airport and greater numbers of aircraft landing and taking off at Toronto international.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if anybody would like to ask something else on transportation, I could collect the bits and pieces of paper necessary to give an answer to the hon. member.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I will add a couple more questions. If it is not possible for the minister to answer at the moment, I will be happy to wait until he is able to do so.
I am obviously concerned about the addition of the fourth runway at that airport. I should like to stress to the minister that a commitment was made, subdivisions and homes were built, local planners responded in trust to the federal commitment and home owners have purchased homes there in response. The addition of a fourth runway would be an intrusion on those subdivisions and in a sense would be a violation of trust with the home owners who accepted our commitment. It is the addition of the fourth runway that concerns me most.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mississauga North has a very interesting theory, and I was delighted
to hear it. It seems to be a new theory which relates the number of people living in a certain area to the number of passengers, at least the way I understood it. No? I will start again.
The straight answer is this. Extension plans are in response to normal growth of traffic only. So there is no great philosophy behind it. You have the traffic, you have the needs, they are assessed and then you build whatever needs to be built. Presumably some people would like to build for the needs at hand, for today's needs, while others who think in more sophisticated terms would like to build for what will be needed in years to come.
The Department of Transport has sometimes been accused of looking a bit too far into the future. But at the moment we cannot afford it anyway. So the first answer concerns the relationship between normal growth and capacity.
The second answer, which is the most important from the member's point of view, is that there is no study now under way concerning a fourth runway. That is one for the future. I do not know what will happen but some day when the Toronto area needs have to be met, needs which cannot be satisfied by Malton, perhaps something will be done. In the meantime, a number of studies are being done to find out how the traffic can be decongested at Malton and rerouted to other airports in the area. Some people have mentioned that Hamilton might take some of the traffic. This is the kind of thinking that appears to be going on now.
The third question asked what is being done about noise abatement. The first thing is the way a runway is oriented. That is to say, the way in which different runways are used at different times in relation to winds, the time of day and such factors. The second point, which I had already started to answer, is that there are special takeoff and departure techniques. I was given an illustration of that the other day. The third is installing a noise monitoring system. I hope this is sufficient information, but if not I will exchange correspondence with the member for Mississauga North of the type which we have already started on another subject.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Mr. Benjamin:: My riding is Regina West now, Mr. Chairman. They took a lot of my farmers away from me but I am going to say something for them anyway.
I have a number of questions for the Minister of Transport and a couple of hours ago I sent a note over to him listing them. He has answered one of them.
The first three questions I would like to put to him are of a local nature, but their ramifications concern many places in the rest of Canada. First is the issue of rail line relocation. The minister knows that a few days ago my colleagues the hon. members for Winnipeg North and Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe one of the Conservatives from Winnipeg, raised the subject of rail line relocation of the CPR yards in Winnipeg. I hope that is being actively planned and prepared for. However, I hope the minister will also say that Winnipeg will
May 15, 1980

have to wait in line. Regina has been waiting for four years. There have been four announcements from two different ministers of transport committing the federal government to the proper share of the cost of relocating railway yards in Regina. Phase one is the CNR yards in northwest Regina. Everything else is held up. Funds have not been allocated.
Is any of the amount of $8,816,000 as payment under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act in the current estimates, to go to the rail line relocation for phase one in Regina?
My second question is this: Two years ago in February or March the then deputy minister of transport for air-I do not know if he is still there or not-gave me a time frame for either the expansion or the construction of a new airport terminal in Regina of three years. Two years have gone by and nothing has happened. We are managing to get another air conditioner in the old building, but that is all that has happened. Can the minister tell me where that matter stands, when something will happen and what is the new time frame?
The third question is one which the minister and I have had correspondence and discussions about, and I know he has had exchanges with many others as well. It concerns multi-modal downtown transportation centres and the use of present CN or CP railway stations and the station property that is adjacent to those rail lines to be used as combination rail and bus terminals, airline ticket offices, city transit stops and so forth. VIA Rail has probably looked at two dozen communities from Moncton, New Brunswick right through to the Pacific ocean where this could and should be done.
In the case of Regina, this is a matter of extreme urgency. If the plan is going to proceed, Regina will have to be the first one served because the Saskatchewan transportation company, the main bus company that wants to move into a multi-modal station with VIA Rail, has been waiting three years. There has been a three-year delay in building a new bus terminal in order to be able to co-operate and join in with this one at the CPR Union Station in Regina.
Negotiations have been going on between VIA Rail and Canadian Pacific for something like 15 or 18 months. Canadian Pacific has been stalling. I am informed now that Canadian Pacific tells VIA Rail that it will only sell at book value that portion of the railway station that was used for rail passenger service at the time of the inception of VIA Rail. That is a little ticket counter, the baggage room and the walkway to the railway tracks. That is what will be let go at book value. Canadian Pacific will not let the rest go except at commercial value.
Canadian Pacific is trying to hold up VIA Rail and the travelling public in Canada to ransom again. The land on which those mainline railway stations are located was acquired for nothing. The buildings have paid for themselves two or three times over. The one in Regina was built in 1912. It is a beautiful marble building but it needs refurbishing.
There is a refusal by Canadian Pacific to co-operate on a necessary and worth-while project in many Canadian cities about which, by the way, all parties agree something should be
Supply
done, including city councils, bus companies, provincial governments, chambers of commerce and labour councils. There is agreement across the board that something should be done. It is now a case that the minister and the government have to tell the CPR that it is not running this country. Will the minister now consider requesting CTC to issue an order to Canadian Pacific to turn that property over to VIA Rail at book value?
If the minister will answer those three questions briefly, I have three more for him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will try the three of them. The first one with respect to relocation is not a new one. There seems to be a running debate as to who got there first, whether it was Winnipeg, Regina or somebody else.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was Regina.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will agree with that until someone else from Winnipeg disagrees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have needed it for 25 years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But a number of promises or commitments-and I do not know how to describe them-were made. If my memory serves me well, the one at Regina was at the level of $16 million.
We had a conversation the other day with ministers in charge of these matters, including Mr. Smishek in Regina. I explained the difficulty that I had under the UTAP program. We suggested that he uses the UTAP program in phase one of the relocation of CN lines, and we hope that more money will be found later on when we have UTAP 2, or son of UTAP. Anyway, it was an interesting exchange of views.
I want to praise the government of Saskatchewan because they are trying hard to accommodate us in the same way as we try to accommodate them. My understanding is that the provincial government now has a proposal. We have to be able to reach a conclusion on that subject. I cannot be more specific today. We are trying to distribute the expenditures in such a way as to accommodate both governments.
With regard to the multi-modal transportation centre in Regina, unfortunately I do not have anything of major value to announce. Like my hon. friend, I understand that conversations are going on. I hope that CP reads me. I was hoping that some agreement would be reached relatively rapidly, but I am told that it has not yet, the approach being different. CP is hesitant to let go of the property of the whole of the station. It is willing to accommodate, but only with a section of it.
I just received a note that I will read. It is not from the other place! "The rail passenger program provides for the transfer of stations from CN and CP to VIA." This was a discussion between CP and VIA which all members understand. "Basic principles are at net book value."
[ Translation]
Well, well, that's interesting.

May 15, 1980
Supply

"These matters are still being negotiated"-I have said that already-"and I hope that a satisfactory settlement will be reached". I said that too. "If not, we will look at other means." I was thinking about that. "The Regina multi-modal project is strongly supported." The hon. member for Regina West said that very well indeed. There will be more discussion on this project, interest in which is shared by a great number of people, including the present speaker. We will do whatever we can to help.


An hon. Member:: You have about two weeks left.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget Winnipeg.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I said during question period that the president of CP Rail was coming to see me again on May 29.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Take your gun out next time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will give him a candy bar! On Regina airport, on June 13, 1978, the Minister of Transport and Saskatchewan minister of municipal affairs announced acceptance of the recommendation of the Regina airport study. The study recommended extension of the air terminal building, land acquisition and development of the runway and a taxiway complex. The current status is this.
Action is now under way to incorporate the major changes recommended by the study into a detailed master plan for the development of the airport and this master plan is anticipated to be complete by August 1980. Meanwhile, concepts for the extension of the air terminal building have been prepared and reviewed by the airlines and the province and the required program approval documents are now being prepared. Design completion is scheduled for 1981-82, provided the necessary approvals are obtained. Construction would commence in 1982-83, with completion of the facility expected in 1984-85.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One quick point, Mr. Chairman. The minister referred to the use of UTAP for the rail line relocation. We must remember that the Saskatchewan allocation for UTAP is $8 million for the entire province. It would hardly be fair for the provincial government to use all of that in one place, leaving out other places in the province that require funds under UTAP.
Can the minister tell us if there has been a quick decision in the last few days or if there will be in the next few days to implement the Hall report recommendations pertaining to the Crowsnest rate and the compensatory rates, because this ties in with the whole matter of rail line rehabilitation, the upgrading of rail lines generally and obtaining more railway equipment.
According to the wire story I have, Canadian Pacific says that the three hundred and some million dollar construction project in the Rocky Mountains will remain frozen until Ottawa agrees to revise the freight rates on grain shipments. The CP vice-president went on to say that the company would not finance the project without assurances it would not have to
continue suffering heavy losses on its grain shipments. If the government would implement the Hall commission recommendation on the Crow rate, that matter would be solved right then and there.
The point is that CP has again acted as though it and not the government is running the country, blackmailing the people of this country, holding us up to ransom. They have a record over the past number of years of refusing to buy railway cars, not just for grain but for other commodities. The hon. member for Medicine Hat can talk about the 50 per cent shortage of stock cars.
CP refused to rehabilitate railway cars until a previous minister of transport had to make them get involved. They refused to properly maintain their rail lines and railway equipment and to provide year round service on branch lines.
Their profits last year were something in the order of $258 million. In addition, they received another $200 million in deferred corporate taxes last year. They now owe the people of Canada almost a billion dollars in deferred corporate taxes and they will not fix their tracks. Is the minister going to allow Canadian Pacific to operate in that manner? Is he going to enforce section 262 of the Railway Act, which states that the railways shall provide suitable accommodation for all traffic offered? That means tracks, roadbeds, equipment and everything else.
The Crow rate issue hinges on this. If the government would implement Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation, there would not be a new expenditure by the government. They could quit paying branch line subsidies and paying for rehabilitation of rail lines and other subsidies. Almost all of it that would go into the difference between paying the Crow rate and the compensatory rate would be money that has already been spent on other things. Then we could make the railways perform, make them fix the tracks and buy equipment.
I would appreciate if the minister could give us a breakdown of what rail lines and branch lines on the prairies will be rehabilitated this year, CP and CN, for $71,350,000.
My final question is on the matter of the awarding of the air route from Toronto to Halifax to CP Air. Many members have received representations from a lot of groups and individuals in Nova Scotia protesting that, asking that the government reverse its decision and give it to Eastern Provincial Airways. I recall a previous minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, announcing the division of air routes. I described him as a fifteenth century pope dividing the world between Portugal and Spain. He was dividing the world between CP and Air Canada.
CP does not need this route. This award would be harmful to Eastern Provincial Airways, jeopardizing some of the local routes Eastern Provincial Airways operates at a loss, crosssubsidizing from routes that are profitable. Will the minister advise whether the government will agree to reverse the decision of the board and award the Halifax to Toronto route to Eastern Provincial Airways?
May 15, 1980


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to three subjects. The first is the statutory grain rates, the Crowsnest rates. I do not want to engage in the debate the hon. member raises on the role of CP in Canadian history. There is no way I am going to try and change his views this afternoon. I will repeat what I think I have already said about the Crow rates.
I am intrigued by the whole debate on Crow rates at this moment. I meet a number of people who say: Don't touch it; everything is all right as it is. I have got it from very highly placed authority that I shouldn't "mess with it". Then I get it from another side that since the Snavely report western farmers have realized that there is a problem-that the railways have been losing so many hundreds of millions of dollars a year because of the Crow rate of half a cent per ton mile. The figure of $173 million in 1979 is one which is sometimes used. Consequently people holding this view say something has to be done.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Justice Hall has told you what it is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Justice Hall has given his views on the subject. Others have expressed views which are slightly different from his. I am told by some people to stay away and by others to come in. I think I will not resist the second invitation because it seems there is something abnormal about the way the railway system operates when it comes to grain; there must be a better way of doing it than the present one. That is generally recognized.
What is also generally recognized is that the farmers of western Canada have a right in the Crow rate, and that right must be respected. So everyone is looking for the correct formula, one which would both respect the right and permit better operation of the railway system. And that is what we are going to try to find out. A great number of people have tried to find this formula-I know 1 am not the first but I hope to follow them along that line.
On the subject of the situation at Eastern Provincial Airways, the situation is that an appeal has been made to me as Minister of Transport by both EPA and Air Canada under section 25 of the Transportation Act. Under that section I am supposed to allow intervenors to make representations, so we shall, of course, permit that to happen. Canadian Pacific is due to implement the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission early in July, so the objective would, of course, be for the minister to come to a decision either accepting the ruling of the commission or rejecting it before then. 1 should not talk about it further because it is somewhat sub judice.
The third question had to do with the prairie rail rehabilitation program, if I remember correctly. To give me a few moments for reflection before I answer it, perhaps the hon. member would like to continue his remarks.


Mr. Mazankowski:: I was intrigued by the response the minister made to the hon. member from Regina. In connection
Supply
with the Crowsnest freight rates, could I ask the minister whether it is his intention to refer this matter to a commission or to a committee of inquiry? Rumour has it that this is one of the options the government is considering. Is this a course which is actively being considered?


Jean-Luc Pepin: To answer that question by my distinguished predecessor, let me say I really do not know what would be the best strategy, the best approach to take. Some people suggest the kind of commission to which he has referred. They even suggest names of people who might be asked to head it. Others look in the direction of something less formal, something of the type of commission I myself was connected with, the national unity group, though, possibly, less flambuoyant-a group of wise men, the "wise men" approach. And women. Wise persons. Oh, my God!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It takes a little time. Such a body would be less formal and its job would be to listen to views, massage them and help formulate them. I must say I am attracted to that approach and I would like to know the views of the hon. member for Vegreville if he cares to teach us a bit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I suppose I could express a view or make a comment on that subject but there are a number of other questions I wish to pose at this time. I gather from the minister's answer that he is in fact considering some kind of mechanism to review the whole subject of the Crowsnest Pass rates. Could I have a simple yes or no to that question? I see the minister responding in the affirmative.
I should like to ask another question. It involves an area of general policy or general philosophy. I note that this reference emerged when there was some uncertainty expressed about whether the Prince Rupert project was going ahead or not. In the context of that discussion the cliche "user-pay" came up. Can I ask the minister this. Does he intend to go back to the user-pay concept of a former minister of transport-the Otto Lang user-pay concept?
Also, can he tell the House whether he has given any consideration to the application of this policy with respect to the marine sector, the coastguard? What is the over-all view of the government on cost recovery with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway? I suppose the subject extends beyond that to the area of air administration, the operation, maintenance and provision of infrastructure in connection with airports. Is the minister considering at the present time any substantial increases in user fees and landing fees in connection with airports specifically, and can he tell the committee what position he will be taking with respect to the application of the user-pay philosophy as it relates to cost recovery in the marine sector?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if I had wanted to be a philosopher I know what I would have done: I would have stayed in university.

May 15, 1980
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Good idea! When will you go back? You will do less harm.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Are you serious about that? I am just trying to understand the impact of that interruption. I do not think it is funny, that's all. If the hon. member has a joke to make, he should make it on himself.
Coming back to the serious subject of user-pay, I was saying that I did not want to be committed firmly in favour of it or of the other. I think one cannot be. There are different circumstances which need different treatment.
With respect to Prince Rupert, I came in with an inherited situation. One of my predecessors twice removed appeared to want to implement a cost recovery approach. My predecessor once removed had given the impression that he did not want to do that but wanted the whole thing to be given a grant. That is the impression he gave, at least in western Canada. Having looked at it, having looked at the viability of this terminal and having looked also at the precedents elsewhere in matters of grain and other commodities, it seemed to me that there was room for give and take. It seemed to me that this project, Ridley Island, being a viable one-otherwise people would not go into it-deserved to be supported by way of a grant, and the amount of money involved is $22 million. However, at the same time it seemed to me the consortium could pay back by way of cost recovery the price of the wharf.
This has been done. I must say that the consortium was not too surprised when I took that approach. Maybe they expected it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was part of the agreement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It was part of the agreement. I am delighted to hear it now. I am very pleased to hear it, as a matter of fact, because in many places on the west coast I am considered to be-I will not use the word-


Mr. Orlikow:: It's true. Use it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -because I was not as generous as my immediate predecessor was. We are told now that he would have done the same thing I did, so why should I be seen as unsympathetic to western Canada because of the Prince Rupert case when my immediate predecessor has just said or appeared to be saying that he would have done the same thing I have done?


Mr. Blenkarn:: You should have gone out there and said you were going to do the same thing in the first place.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, I did not know.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You could have talked to him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This was not common knowledge, and that is rather important.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You should have talked about it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is rather important.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I might entertain the conversation later, but right now the hon. member for Vegre-ville is questioning the minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish the minister would get around to responding to my questions direct. He has gone into a long discussion of Prince Rupert. My question did not pertain to Prince Rupert; it only arose as an example. Quite frankly, the fact is, as the minister has now indicated, that the memorandum of understanding and the press release are consistent with the agreement which has now been put in place, and I am glad that the minister has now reviewed it to the extent he has and understands it.
While the minister is responding to the question of cost recovery with respect to the coast guard and as to whether he is planning an increase in landing fees and user charges with respect to airports or an increase in an airport transportation tax, I might also ask the minister to comment on what his plans are with respect to the future of the grain transportation co-ordinator. Is the minister planning any changes with respect to the terms of reference? Is he planning to bring in legislation? Can he give the House the assurance that the present grain transportation co-ordinator, Dr. Horner, will remain in that position?
If the minister answers those questions, I might have some more questions to pose to him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I am doing my very best to go at this very rapidly. I was trying to say that, to me, cost recovery or user-pay is not a point of philosophy. It is a practical thing, and each case must be assessed on its own merit. Is that clear? So, when it comes to the seaway, we have now implemented the third tolls increase on the seaway, and these lead to full cost recovery. When it comes to air fees, there will be a discussion with the companies in order to come to conclusions on that.
On the marine side it is more complex. It is more difficult to take a cost recovery approach, so again it will depend on circumstances and on the ability of the clients to pay back. However, as a general proposition I think that the idea is to try to recover as much as the circumstances permit. Why? Simply because with the money recovered great new things can be done. In view of the limitations of the Queen's purse, whenever we can get money from services duly rendered, I think it should be encouraged; but again I do not want to be tied to a philosophical approach to that, each case having specific circumstances.
On the subject of Dr. Horner, the grain co-ordinator, I have met with him a couple of times. We got along fine, and I approve 100 per cent the purpose at hand. The discussion was as to whether he needs more powers, whether his activities should be structured and incorporated in laws, and matters of that kind. I think we agreed that it is too early to say and that he will move seriatim, progressively, to find out what he needs as far as powers are concerned. If the powers that the minister can delegate to him are sufficient, so much the better, but we
May 15, 1980

have decided to take a very practical and down-to-earth approach to that. Is that sufficient as an answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, another question which was included in that series was whether the minister could assure the House that Dr. Horner would continue as the grain transportation co-ordinator inasmuch as he is on a contract basis which expires annually.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, he will continue. He expressed to me his willingness-his eagerness, I was going to say-to do so, so there is no question at least in my mind, that Dr. Horner is there to stay.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister will know, I am sure, that last year in November a very successful event took place at the Port of Churchill, the sailing of the MV Arctic into the Port of Churchill about two or three weeks after the season had closed. It was the intention of our government to attempt to repeat that voyage prior to the opening of the normal season at the port of Churchill and, hopefully, arrange for a similar voyage in late June or early July. Is that something which is currently under active consideration, and can the minister give us any indication as to what plans are in effect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer is a simple yes, Mr. Chairman, the ship will go to Churchill again this year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister give us more details? I understand from his answer that plans are under way. Can the minister give us an approximate sailing date? Can he give us some idea whether we have a cargo? I think these plans are important as an indication of whether in fact that voyage will take place.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the answer is in June, but I cannot be more specific than that. As my hon. friend is aware, there are some protests coming from rivals of the MV Arctic re the transportation of goods in the area. It seems that these protests will be accommodated and that there will be work for everybody. Consequently, the MV Arctic will not be competing unfairly against other carriers in the area.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate whether in fact there is a cargo secured, which would have to be done under the auspices of the Canadian Wheat Board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that it is being actively worked on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister give us some outline as to his position or that of the government with respect to the gradual development of a deep sea fleet, a merchant marine? As he knows and I am sure would recognize, a fair amount of preliminary work has been undertaken by the previous government with respect to considering various ways and means and incentives toward the gradual redevelopment of a deep sea fleet for Canada. I think the minister knows the importance of that in economic terms and in terms of opportunities for Canada. Can he give us some indication that he will pursue, in
Supply
a vigorous manner, the course of development of a deep sea fleet for Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, I will do so as rapidly as I can. I am working now, with a lot of advice from others, on a speech which I will be giving to the national marine conference ten days from now. Of course, I have discussed this subject quite extensively with officers in my department. I think I share the view of my predecessor on the gist of the case they are making.
Until now Canada, which is a major trading company in the world, has relied on the market place to do the job of deep sea transportation. I presume this was the right policy to follow because there was competition and presumably we were benefiting from it. Not being forced to use our own ships, we could make sales in countries which had a deep sea fleet of their own and wanted to use it to carry our exports. So perhaps that was an advantage for a period of time, but I think my friend will agree that things have changed very much since then. We have seen in deep sea fishing the same kind of evolution that has taken place in general trading, that is that trade is still generally free but tends to be monopolized by governments, by groups of countries and by groups of people-the "collectivization of international trade", if I can put it this way. The same thing is happening in deep sea fishing.
The eastern European countries, the Soviet Union, have taken a very important position. Also, the developing countries in the world have staked their ground through UNCTAD and are working it out in their own best interests. The United States, because of its power in these areas, can manage to walk both sides of that street. As I understand it my hon. friend is telling me that Canada should make a major decision in these matters.
I would like to say that having seen these changes taking place on the trading side as minister of industry, trade and commerce ten years ago, I am in a good position now to see similar changes taking place in the area of deep sea shipping.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the minister's response. I hope that in the course of his deliberations he will consult extensively with industry, and I am sure he will, because I think there is valued input that can be gained from that sector. I think it is very important, in taking such a quantum leap forward, for industry to be involved.
I should like to ask another question of the minister, Mr. Chairman. Can he indicate whether it is his intention to follow along the course which our government took in the establishment of a seaway advisory board or the seaway advisory council which could very well be the forerunner to a board of directors? With regard to air transportation, can the minister bring us up to date with respect to the matter of air access to western Canada by British and other European carriers, particularly Lufthansa? Clearly westerners are demanding that additional service. Clearly the British want access, and so does Lufthansa Airlines. In many respects westerners feel they are being treated as second-class citizens. The traffic is increasing

May 15, 1980
Supply
substantially and there is tremendous potential in generating additional tourist traffic.
Furthermore, it is fair to say that there is a fair amount of traffic being diverted to the United States as a result of that freedom of choice. When the minister gets to Calgary and probably meets with a very effective and efficient transportation authority in that city, he will find that a lot of business is going south of the border, which is not doing us much good. I hope that the minister will accelerate the bilaterals in that regard and will work toward opening up that access, because I think it is important for western Canada. It is clearly very important from the standpoint of the over-all Canadian economy, particularly as it relates to our tourist trade.


Jean-Luc Pepin: First, with regard to the seaway, I must say that when I looked at the project which was left on my desk for the creation of a seaway board and possibly of a seaway advisory council which might lead to the creation of a board, I was extremely attracted to the idea. Although it will present difficulties when it becomes a board because, after all, some of its potential members will be interested parties and would have a vested interest in the operation of a seaway, I have come to agree, despite my uncertainty, to proceed through the advisory council. Since then I have had meetings with people from the industry and somewhat to my regret I have found that it might not be what they are looking for. They are looking for a direct nose to nose, belly button to belly button contact with the seaway authorities so that they can really get to know what the planning is, and so on. This is not exactly in the nature of a traditional advisory council. So I am uncertain about the idea but I am considering it.
With regard to the international air negotiations, the hon. member mentioned their importance of which I am very much aware. They are important to Canada, they are important to western Canada, they are important to Canada's national carrier and to a great number of people. So I am assigning the importance to it which it deserves to have.
Frankly, I did not think feelings in western Canada are as strong about this as my hon. friend is making them out to be. I did not have that impression. My impression was that governments and people in the three western provinces were quite willing to accept the fact that negotiations would be very difficult and that a great number of things had to be balanced, such as the interest of regional carriers, the interest of the national carriers, the concessions made in the past and the advantages to be gained in the future.
When I went to the western provinces, my impression was that people were quite willing to accept the proposition that the matter was very complex and that it needed much attention and a lot of hard bargaining. In any case, the negotiations are proceeding. Negotiations with the United Kingdom did not start off too well, and that is admitted, but I understand that difficulties have been patched up and a normal type of meeting will take place very soon, if it is not in progress now, and the others are waiting.
I realize my predecessor knows these things, but I thought I would put them on the record, at the same time, just so that other members will be aware of them.
The discussion in these matters goes through three phases. First, there is the conversation between the companies, between the air carriers; second, the regulators come in; and the governments come in at the end. Two main areas of Canada are now being debated from the point of view of international transporters; that is, western Canada and the Toronto area. Entry to these areas is very important to them in economic terms. We are approaching it in a very realistic, down-to-earth manner-let us see the colour of your money and we will show you the colour of ours. It is negotiation. Canadians should not be troubled unnecessarily if there is a bit of flak in these negotiations, because that is the normal pattern.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to contribute a few words to this particular debate. It interests me, in this kind of session where we have the ministers in front of us, that we spend the first day trying to give the President of the Treasury Board a hard time on government spending, and then we spend the next day, each with our own particular plans on how we can spend some more money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I say that in defence of the President of the Treasury Board, but I must say that he needs very, very little defence. I think he handles himself extremely well. However, I think this is as it should be. Certainly I will be talking a little bit about how we can spend money in Thunder Bay very profitably, to the advantage of the country.
I should like to address the minister on the whole subject of grain movement and particularly as it affects the port or harbour of Thunder Bay. Last summer there was one large article in the Toronto Star and an editorial in The Globe and Mail within a couple of weeks of each other. Both of them talked about grain movement and the difficulties we were having with grain movement in the country. They were long articles, long editorials and so on. They described the port of Churchill, the port of Prince Rupert, Vancouver, and the difficulties being encountered there. It was interesting that in both the editorial and the article there was not one single mention of the port of Thunder Bay, yet two-thirds of all of the grain moved through this country is moved through the port of Thunder Bay. It is just incredible that this happens.
One of the reasons it happens is because it is a very efficient port. There have virtually been no labour problems, no strikes, nothing like that, so things go on. People just forget about it; it has to be a port in trouble or something like that to get that kind of attention. I am using this time to bring that to the attention of the minister, because I think it is important to realize that at this particular point Thunder Bay is moving about two-thirds of all the grain moved through the country. It varies from second to third as the largest bulk-handling port in
May 15, 1980

Canada. It is an extremely important centre, especially in terms of grain movement.
To give an example, we have calculated that in four days through Thunder Bay we can move the same amount of grain as can be moved in the whole season out of Churchill. This is not to put Churchill down but it does focus a little bit on how this grain is actually moved and on the port that does most of it. Also we have been told by senior officials of the CPR that if it was not for the Crowsnest rates-in other words, if grain movement was handled on a cost basis-it would be considerably cheaper to move grain from each of the prairie provinces, through Thunder Bay, by ships around to the Panama canal and to Asia, than it would be to move it across the Rockies. I think this is significant information which the minister must use when he is calculating how one moves grain efficiently.
Some time ago I was involved, as many other members have been, in a railway relocation project. We were involved back in 1972, 1973 and 1974 when we were trying to get this act together so that we could have relocation in lieu of overpasses. I have stuck with this for a considerable number of years. A small study was done, financed by the last Liberal government. This rail relocation study was rather interesting so far as the city of Thunder Bay was concerned. The interesting thing was that we came to the conclusion the problem could be much better solved by looking at grain movement in the community. When we did that, we found it was not as efficient as it should be, particularly the rail side of it.
As I say, the study was based on a proposal for rail relocation, and in the study we found that really what we had to do was amalgamate the two railways, set up new yards, get rid of a diamond which was creating some serious problems, and this would achieve a great deal more efficient grain movement to Thunder Bay. I present this study to the minister not as a scheme for rail relocation, even though that is how it started, but rather as a move whereby we can improve the movement of grain in this country.
I am not asking the minister today to say what they have decided, where it stands and so on. I think that is something which must be looked at over a long period of time. But I am asking him to take a look at that $30 million to $35 million, to put that with the $700 million or $800 million for hopper cars over the next ten years, to put it with the money for double tracking, for additional sidings and all kinds of things that will be required, and say, "Look, this one fits and it is one of those things which will give us good value for our dollar". Only in that respect should it be considered.
In conclusion, I should like to make one other comment. One of the difficulties we face in this country is the kind of division we have between the east and central Canada. I should like to make a very strong plea in this House of Commons to the people of Canada to recognize the port of Thunder Bay as being basically a western port. It is the port with the access to the west. I think a good deal can be done to achieve that result. I am not in any way downgrading ports like Prince Rupert, Vancouver or Churchill, but I would hope
Supply
that we can establish the fact that indeed Thunder Bay is a western port.
I have asked my community to take a look at themselves to see in what way we can begin to look at the west. I would ask the minister if he would please consider the following small proposition which I think is worth while looking at. We have a Harbour Commission which is not part of the harbours board, it is a separate entity. I would very much like to see the commission enlarged so that the western provinces felt they had a position on that Harbour Commission board.
There are several possibilities in that respect. 1 might suggest that each of the western prairie provinces appoint or have in some way appointed a member to the board so that we can become in truth a western port. Having lived very close to the west, I can understand the feelings that westerners have when they feel isolated and that central Canada is too powerful. I am saying to them that we in Thunder Bay have that same feeling very much in the province of Ontario with respect to Toronto. We feel very much that this big city in this "Golden Horseshoe" overpowers us. In very many ways, we must look to the west and look upon ourselves as a western port. I hope that westerners will do the same.
I close by asking the minister if he would seriously consider the responsibility of enlarging our Harbour Commission and working in very many ways so that the people of the west will see Thunder Bay as their harbour and so that we in Thunder Bay will look to the west as a source of our wealth. This will bring us much closer together.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Chairman, Timmins-Chapleau over the past few years has become one of the important airports of northern Ontario with regard to passenger traffic. The area is served by Air Canada, NorOnt Air and Austin Airways. Austin Airways is the largest third level carrier in Canada, and its planes fly to the Arctic. It averages between 12 and 40 movements per day.
At the present time we rely on the Vassis system for landing aid. Over the past two years the government has invested money in the preliminary work for an instrument landing system at the Timmins airport. In the fiscal year 1979-80 land was purchased for the beacons at the three-mile site and the seven-mile site. It would appear that the ILS would be completed by 1981-82.
Also, because of the large amount of air traffic at that airport, it has been suggested to the minister that new taxi ways be built on the longer of the two runways. Because of the large number of passengers coming and going at that airport, the parking facilities at this time are very inadequate. Most of the passengers at the Timmins airport are coming or going north, and having flown those long distances there seems to be a shortage of space in the waiting room and restaurant. These were part of the projections made by the Ministry of Transport. Would the minister comment on the projections for the Timmins airport in the next two or three years?
1126

May 15, 1980
Supply


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to direct my questions to the President of the Treasury Board. I was curious about the minister's statement which he made last night, that he was in full accord with the concept of putting forward the expenditure projections for the next four or five years. Yet he was not prepared to produce those estimates for the projections to this House. I am curious to know why, if he is in favour of that concept, he declines to provide that information to the House of Commons.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think that I made it clear in other statements that I favour long-term financial planning, which requires long-term financial projections. That is what the Lambert commission recommended. I simply said that I supported that recommendation.


John William Thomson: That was not my question. My question is simply this: is the President of the Treasury Board in favour of presenting those estimates and, if he is, will he present them? What reason does he have for not presenting them in the House?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we are still in the same Committee of the Whole as we were last night. It seems to me that I answered that question completely. The question which was put to me asked whether I was in favour of long-term financial projections. The hon. member knows, as does the hon. member for York-Peel who is here with us, that the expenditure management system is dependent upon multiple year planning. It can operate in no other way. It seems to me that that has nothing to do with the issue as to whether I should be tabling expenditures or forecasts of any kind.
We are here to discuss the 1980-81 estimates. I was pleased to see that the hon. member for Vegreville at least was prepared to address some serious questions to my colleague, the Minister of Finance. It is now going into the second day and I have had officials here ready to respond to any serious questions with respect to the appropriation act in front of us, and I have yet to receive one question. I have been asked about issues, some of which should be properly addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I do not see what multiple year planning has to do with the concept and failing to produce projections in the House, if indeed the minister is in favour of that concept.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, if I may go back to yesterday's discussion, the hon. member for York-Peel asked whether I believed in the four-year or five-year forecasting program which has been suggested in such reports as the Lambert report. In reply to that question I said that 1 believe in four year or five-year programs. With regard to the question about tabling, I said that I was not prepared to table any such reports during the hearings before this committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why not?


Donald James Johnston: Because I am not prepared to table them. That is my right.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, is the President of the Treasury Board responsible for expenditures, or is he not? If he is, why can he not table those projections in this House, or does he not have them?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a dialogue of the deaf, the deaf being the hon. members on the other side. This same question was put to me last night. I answered by saying that I favour multiple-year projections. I indicated again today that multiple-year projections are necessary for an expenditure management system.
When asked if I was prepared to table any such projections, I said that I was not prepared to table them at this time. I am not giving any commitment with respect to the tabling of those projections, because, as I pointed out, the fiscal plan is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The hon. member for York-Peel has made much of the fact that the former minister of finance-which he thought he then was, but it was the hon. member for St. John's West-came forward with some projections last December. I do not recall those projections being tabled by the then president of the treasury board. I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There was a press release on January 22.


Donald James Johnston: My recollection is that these projections were tabled by the then minister of finance who was responsible for projections of that kind.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, does the President of the Treasury Board consider himself to be responsible for all government spending or does he not?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it appears that the hon. member is not aware of the expenditure management system developed by the hon. Bob Andras when he was president of the treasury board. It was adopted by the previous government, the Conservative administration. The purpose of the expenditure management system is to place policy committees in a position to determine their priorities. The purpose of Treasury Board in those circumstances is to be the over-all manager of those envelopes. Treasury Board's role will hopefully change from what it has been in the past. Over-all management and responsibility for those envelopes, the monitoring of those expenditures, and the approval of the operational and strategic plans that come forward, are the responsibility of Treasury Board.
Perhaps the hon. member is not fully familiar with the expenditure system, although I am sure the hon. member for York Peel is. Under the new expenditure management system the intention is to place responsibility from the top down, by putting responsibility for savings in the same envelope as the responsibility for spending. Responsibility for control and ordering priorities, cutting programs and substituting pro-
May 15, 1980

grams, should, under an expenditure management system, properly operated, be within the jurisdiction of the ministers who form part of the policy committee dealing with that envelope.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the other hon. members of the House gained anything from that statement. 1 asked a very simple question: is the minister responsible for spending or is he not? It requires only a "yes" or "no" answer. I do not want to hear about envelopes. Is it the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board to put a certain sum of money in the envelope and then that is all that particular minister has to spend, or is it the responsibility of some other official in the government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He is just a token.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Be careful now.


Donald James Johnston: I require no protection as the hon. member has suggested. He requires protection from himself, Mr. Chairman. He is his own worst enemy. I would appreciate it if he refrained from any comments until he has an opportunity to question me further at eight o'clock this evening.
The expenditure plan of a government, the fiscal plan of a government, is prepared by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board, myself.


John William Thomson: I take from that, Mr Chairman, that the Treasury Board is no more than a bookkeeper for all the spending that takes place in the government. In effect there is no accountability in Treasury Board for money spent; they simply account for those moneys with no control over them.
Let me go on to another matter. The Auditor General has stated that the estimates in their present form are confusing and uninformative. I am sure the minister, if he has been exposed, as many of us have been, to the form of the estimates presented to members of the House, will concur. The Auditor General has made specific recommendations with respect to the form of the estimates so that they will be presented in an intelligible form to members. We are not all accountants or bookkeepers. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board could tell the House specifically when he intends to produce, for members of the House, the estimates in a form as recommended by the Auditor General.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the new form of the estimates, absolutely essential to an adequate information system for members of the House, for the media, and for the public at large, is, I hope, now under way. The new form was recommended in a report from the public accounts committee, I believe in March, 1979. There were delays; there was n election, as hon. members will recall, in May, 1979, and it may not have been as major a priority item as it is in my mind-I should start that sentence again so there is no confusion about it. It is a
Supply
major priority item with us; it may not have been with my predecessor.
In any event, the Comptroller General now has assumed responsibility for this program. I understand that we will be producing pilot projects for examination by members in, say, five specific departments, late this year. These pilot projects will give members an opportunity to assess their value. I am sure they will be pleased with the result.
I understand that in the 1981-82 year we will be presenting the same five or a number of parallel estimates showing those departments but based upon, as I recall, the prior year. In other words, they will be there in a form which will permit hon. members to make a comparison, to evaluate, and, if you like, understand the difference between the existing estimates and the new form of estimates which we hope to introduce. This has been put on a timetable. It is being monitored by my office and I shall do my best to ensure that the schedule I have indicated today is adhered to.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was our schedule.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear, after many years of recommendations by the Auditor General that the estimates be presented in a readable and informative manner, that we are finally to see this.
The Auditor General also made another recommendation, that the actual expenditures be presented, as against the detailed estimates. As the President of the Treasury Board is well aware, we have here the book of estimates for the year ending March 31, 1979, and also what we actually spent for the year. The object of the Auditor General's recommendation is to match these two, so that members of Parliament will know where there is deviation, where we have overspent, and where we have underspent, and so that we can have an intelligent approach to examining the money actually spent and the estimates for the ensuing year. Could the President of the Treasury Board please tell me when he expects to have that comparative information available?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the project with respect to the public accounts and with respect to the same pilot project is proceeding in parallel so that there will be public accounts available for examination by comparison with the new form of estimates, following the 1981-82 year. Members of the House will be able to do as the hon. member suggests, that is, make a direct comparison between the new form of the estimates and the new form of the public accounts designed to reflect the spending done pursuant to those estimates.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, one of the most important proposals that the Auditor General put forth was the hiring of a comptroller general. At the same time he recommended that departmental financial comptrollers be hired and placed in each department. The Auditor General said recently that the Comptroller General had completed his IMPAC program but the program could not proceed because there were no financial comptrollers in the individual departments to implement it.

May 15, 1980
Supply
Could the President of the Treasury Board address himself to that matter?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the office of the Comptroller General will be producing the departmental comptroller projects this year. There is no doubt that the office of the Comptroller General, which reports to me, and I, as President of the Treasury Board, are committed to proceeding with the implementation of this part of the program which is so necessary to establish proper financial controls in the various departments.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the President of the Treasury Board understood my question. We need the departmental financial comptrollers in place before the program can be implemented. Are these men in place, or when will they be in place to implement the program?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I did understand the question. I think the issue is twofold. First, of course, is the question of finding proper and capable people to fill the role of departmental comptroller in these various departments. That in itself is a challenge. Second, of course, it is a matter of establishing and signing off action plans pursuant to all the various IMPAC studies, which are currently proceeding.
A departmental comptroller is a financial officer with a greater breadth of experience and discipline in certain areas than is readily available in many of the departments at the present time. The office of the Comptroller General is addressing itself to that problem, which is in part a manpower problem. We will probably be looking at it also through such programs as executive interchange and other techniques designed, hopefully, to be able to acquire some of the talent and professional disciplines needed from perhaps the private sector in order to move ahead with this very important aspect of the management control systems in departments, as the hon. member has indicated.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to get at here is that the Auditor General has stated in his report that the Comptroller General has completed his IMPAC studies and he is ready to move ahead on implementation and he does not have the manpower to do so.
The President of the Treasury Board is saying that the IMPAC studies are continuing to go on in tandem with looking for people. That is not the case as presented by the Auditor General. He is saying that the IMPAC studies are completed and now we need the people to get on with the program and to implement it, and we do not have the people. My question is: when are we going to have the people?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should go back and review what the Auditor General has said. I would be surprised if he said that the IMPAC program was completed. In fact action plans have been signed off now with, I believe, seven departments and agencies. We hope we will be able to sign off approximately 25 by the end of the fiscal year.
But the point that should be borne in mind is that proceeding with many of the recommendations, new procedures and new management practices that will be called for under those action plans, can be carried forward without there being a departmental comptroller in place. Many of them do not require his presence. What I am saying to the hon. gentleman is that we are moving ahead rapidly, as rapidly as we can, with that other aspect as well. He can rest assured that I intend to give full support to the office of the Comptroller General in bringing that part of the over-all management control program to fruition.


John William Thomson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the President of the Treasury Board should have a discussion with the Auditor General. In this document dated May 2, 1980, the Auditor General is talking about a discussion between himself and the Comptroller General. He said that "We discussed where his IMPAC program is now which he has had in motion for 18 months and they are ready now to go into implementation. However, they cannot implement the program because they do not have the departmental comptroller in place."
Those are the words of the Auditor General and I will be happy to supply the President of the Treasury Board with the source of the quotation. It is dated May 2, 1980.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should bear in mind that that statement of the Auditor General may be somewhat dated in that progress has been made.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was May 2.


Donald James Johnston: The Auditor General's report that we are discussing here is the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1979. There are financial officers in all of these departments and good solid progress has been made. If the hon. gentleman wants any further information on it either here or in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates where I will be appearing, I will be glad to cover the matter in detail, or I am prepared to forward him a report. One is never satisfied with progress and improvement of management. All I can say is that we are doing, I believe, everything that reasonably can be done at this stage to satisfy the criticisms that the Auditor General has put forward.


Denis Éthier: The Minister of Transport is seeking the floor but time has expired.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the event that I am not able to be back after eight o'clock, I would like to answer a couple of questions, the first from my Siamese twin, the hon. member from Timmins-Chapleau. This is with respect to the Timmins airport. The government has recognized the need for this airport, and in the fiscal year 1979-80 $20,000 was spent to purchase land. For 1980-81, this year, $90,000 is assigned to the site preparation for the instrument landing system, and in 1981-82, $1.7 million for the instrument landing system, plus $229,000 for electronic equipment. The program should finish by 1982-83
May 15, 1980

with $613,000 for the conclusion of the instrument landing system program.
I want to thank my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Atikokan for his positive and even enthusiastic contribution to the grain situation. He told us that Thunder Bay was in some ways part of western Canada. I was going to suggest that if referenda were more popular, he could run one in Thunder Bay to find out how people would feel about it. But seriously, I agree with him entirely. Grain is moving. The capacity is there now. Fortunately we have no labour problem at this particular moment although we had one in Churchill which was resolved a few days ago.
Thunder Bay has opened for navigation 23 days ahead of what is considered to be the normal period. The Ridley Island grain terminal on the west coast is going to be built. The grain co-ordinator is in operation. Hopper cars are now on stream. Box cars are being rebuilt and, branch lines are being rehabilitated. The CN and CP are improving their rail lines, and double tracking is taking place here and there as needed. So, this is a great situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "God's in his heaven: all's right with the world."


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think we should rejoice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: If hon. friends on the other side want me to say that the minister of transport in the previous administration had something to do with this good climate, I will not deny that, but only under one condition, that is, that they would add that Mr. Lang was there previously and had more to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Be that as it may.
With respect to the prairie railway rehabilitation program, to answer the hon. member for Regina West, the program for this year has now been approved and an announcement will be made in a few days on that subject.
I do not know if the hon. member from Kindersley-Lloyd-minster intends to take part in the debate-yes? Then I will be back at eight o'clock.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I have the report on the breakdown, as it were, of the projects on which the cost overruns that I referred to were incurred. I undertook to table such a report as soon as possible. I am prepared to table this report, but I would point out that, due to the period of time in which I had to obtain it, it is in the English language only-only the headings. It is all numbers and is a computer printout. But with the unanimous consent of members-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on this point of order, it cannot be tabled in Committee of the Whole. It should not be tabled until we go back into the House tonight.
Supply


Denis Éthier: This would have to be done with unanimous consent. It would not be tabled. It would only be filed with the committee. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Denis Éthier: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: When the committee rose at six o'clock p.m., clause 2 of Bill C-29, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1981, was under consideration. The hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe had been given the floor.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments and a question for the Minister of Transport. As the Minister of Transport knows, there is presently under way in my riding a review of transportation services in western Newfoundland, the riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. The two airports in question in this review, which the bureaucrats lovingly refer to as rationalization of air services, are Stephenville and Deer Lake. As the minister also knows, the two airports provide an air service to two different geographical regions in my riding. Because of the rural nature of the riding, the two airports became necessary in the first place.
I would simply like to say and put on the record that while I accept, encourage, and welcome a review of the air transportation service in western Newfoundland, I would like to make it perfectly clear to the minister and his department that it is my position and, indeed, the position of the vast majority of my constituents in Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe and, in particular, the officials in both Deer Lake and Stephenville, that the two airport concept should be embraced by the Department of Transport and that two airports are necessary for the economic well-being of my riding.
Having made those few brief comments, I would now like to come to my question. A few weeks ago, Mr. Harry Steele, the president of Eastern Provincial Airways, the regional carrier that operates out of both Deer Lake and Stephenville, while addressing the Stephenville Chamber of Commerce indicated to his audience that while there is now an ongoing review process of air transportation in Newfoundland, he has inside information that the Department of Transport has already made up its mind to close one of the two airports in western Newfoundland. If Mr. Steele's comments are to be taken at face value, and I have no reason to believe them, the efforts of the Department of Transport are nothing but a farce. My question to the Minister of Transport is simply this. Has the minister or any of the officials in the minister's department

May 15, 1980
Supply
informed Mr. Harry Steele that indeed an airport will be closed in western Newfoundland? I have one supplementary question for the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, this question as to the advisability or otherwise of maintaining the two airports, namely, Stephenville and Deer Lake, is indeed with us. A quite extensive study of this area of Newfoundland will be made to gather all possible facts and figures. A decision has not yet been made. I do not know where the president of Eastern Provincial Airways got this information. I think I have discussed this before with the hon. member. There should be no doubt about our good intentions.
At the same time, this situation is not peculiar to western Newfoundland. There are a number of other cases in Canada where airports are located a relatively short distance from each other. Quite frankly, I must look at this from the point of view of possible savings. I thought I was sufficiently clear on that subject this afternoon, that is to say with regard to the limited resources which are available. I look at it, also, from the point of view of the operations of the regional carrier. I am told that, quite naturally, it costs the carrier more money to keep facilities at two airports. So I want to assure the hon. member that we go into this with the greatest of good intent, and hopefully we shall make the right decision in due course.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have one further comment, Mr. Chairman. When the president of the regional carrier operating in Newfoundland tells a public meeting that a decision has already been made in advance of a review of air service in western Newfoundland, and when at the end of this month the Ministry of Transport proposes to go to western Newfoundland, to Deer Lake, Cornerbrook and Stephenville, the towns concerned; when these people come to public meetings being held by the Ministry of Transport to express their views on air service with the preconceived notion that the ministry has already made its decision, I think we will find in these public meetings a confrontationist kind of atmosphere, with one town presenting its case against the other town, one town suggesting why the airport of the other town should close down.
So it seems to me it would be in the best interests of the Department of Transport-perhaps the minister might endeavour to do this himself-to make a public statement to the people of Newfoundland. I have done it, but I suggest the minister and his departmental officials could do it, that is, make a public statement to the effect that Mr. Steele does not speak on behalf of the Government of Canada, that he does not dictate the policy of the Government of Canada, that the question has not yet been decided, and that those who intend to take part in these hearings should do so from the standpoint that no decision has been made. It is my hope-and I will be attending the hearings-that we could end up with two airports continuing to operate in western Newfoundland. I shall be making this case. Unless the minister clarifies the issue by stating that no decision has yet been made, a situation of conflict is likely to arise where, instead of discussing air
transportation in a rational, objective manner, we are likely to see two towns clawing each other to death, each trying to show why its airport should remain open and the other should close.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I want to repeat emphatically that a decision has not been made. The inquiry is to be a proper one, objectively carried out. I would think that the hon. member, who was present during one of the conversations we had involving Mr. St. John, the deputy air administrator, gained the impression that Mr. St. John wanted this to be as objective an exercise as humanly possible. Mr. Steele, however charming and dedicated he is, obviously does not decide what the department should do. Otherwise, a number of decisions would already have been made which would be quite advantageous to EPA. Finally, through the member of Parliament for the area I would invite people to come to these hearings and attach to them all the importance which, in my view, they deserve.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Chairman, my few comments this evening will be directed to the Minister of Transport who, I trust, will attempt to answer a question of vital importance to my riding, namely, the twice-promised expansion of Mount Hope airport. Even if he cannot offer my constituents some satisfaction, as Minister of Transport, he might offer some sympathy to me as one of his own constituents because I do spend a considerable amount of time in his riding of Ottawa-Carleton. I hope he can offer me and my constituents, as I say, some satisfaction, given the utter confusion that he and his cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East, are causing throughout the Hamilton and Niagara area. As my MP the minister is causing me no end of frustration and genuine concern in connection with this longstanding matter of the expansion of Hamilton airport.
My agitation has been compounded by what the Minister of Transport said this afternoon in one of his typical Maurice Chevalier soft-shoe routines. I am quoting from this day's preliminary transcript of Hansard-the minister started off by saying, and I might add, looking benignly at me, "Distinguished members of this assembly"-and I thank you for that-"come up with suggestions that the number of airports should increase, that facilities should be built all over the place, that radar should be doubled up, and improved." Then he added, "There are limitations to that." Mr. Chairman, you want to believe it! There are also limitations to the patience of the people I represent and, indeed, to the patience of those in the entire Hamilton-Wentworth region and surrounding areas with this government's stalling, foot-dragging, constant delays, and as the hon. member for Hamilton-West is fond of saying, bamboozling and flim-flamming about what should be done, about how much should be done, and when it should be done at Hamilton civic airport.
Quite frankly, I was further angered this afternoon when the minister, trying not to cry his crocodile tears on the floor of this House, told us "I expect to be chastised occasionally by members of this House for not being sufficiently sympathetic to the little local situations." Well, as one Hamilton M.P. who has duly chastised the minister, without success, I fear-
May 15, 1980

dealing with the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton is something like shovelling smoke-I am sorry I cannot accept the minister's point, as he put it, of constitutional philosophy or theology when criticizing the Minister of Transport. I am afraid the minister's remarks this afternoon amounted to the kissing off of just about two million people in my area. He is not only breaking a commitment by the former Conservative government to upgrade and expand Mount Hope, he is also breaking a promise made by the previous Liberal government through his predecessor, the Hon. Otto Lang, reiterated recently, during the campaign and since, by his cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East.
My question is: are our fears well grounded? Is this little local concern, as the minister puts it, in the greater Hamilton-Niagara region, really so far down on the government's list of priorities? I ask it because industry, planners, and government have to know.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I am obviously not getting anywhere with the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth and I regret that very much, because one of my greatest desires in life is to please him and all the members from the Hamilton area in particular. But what I am trying to say is this: we have every desire, every expectation, every hope of accommodating the airport in Hamilton. My distinguished parliamentary secretary referred to this the other night, as reported in Hansard on page 1052, of May 13:
There is no doubt that the people of the Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford area require access to convenient and adequate air transportation service, and this government intends to see that this need is met.
I can only repeat that in emphatic terms. But before spending whatever amount of money is needed, be it $50 million or $30 million or $60 million, we have got to know more clearly what we are trying to do and what is the objective. Circumstances have changed. Promises made in the past are subject to the internationally known rule of facta sunt servanda-promises must be honoured. Promises must be fulfilled, but they are also subject to the other well-known international rule of rebus non sic stantibus. Things do change.
In this particular instance, as I have repeatedly said, we need to know more about the situation. We need to know what is the proper orientation to be given to the runway, for example. We need to know the possibility for Air Canada to move some of its services from Malton, which is surcharge- very, very busy at this time-and the possibility that some of these flights might go to Hamilton. We need to know that in order to find out what it is that has to be done and what it is that has to be spent.
My hon. friend would like me to repeat the two promises which have been made in the past, and I can make only one promise: that proper expenditures will be met in order to develop services at Hamilton airport.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Well, Mr. Chairman, we just received another soft-shoe routine, this time in Latin, from
Supply
the Minister of Transport. He has covered about 15 points which are angering the people of the Hamilton area, and I am going to have to try to bring the minister's attention to these points.
First, one of the biggest fears in our area is that the Hamilton airport could become the Pickering that never was, a kind of international refuse dump from the congested Toronto international airport. That is what I have been jumping up and down about ever since I was elected to this chamber to try to explain to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth would not happen. We have had assurances from the previous minister of transport that indeed Mount Hope would not become the Pickering that never was. I hope the minister is not suggesting that that is what he is looking at when he is talking about Air Canada and other air carriers going into Mount Hope. I just leave that thought with him for the moment.
The other thing is that we have had many studies. We talk about the need to assess the need for an airport. The need for an airport has existed for well over a decade. The people of the Hamilton area have been demanding, crying and pleading for some sort of expansion of our ticky-tacky facilities which we, as a Conservative government, were on the very brink of undertaking. We allocated $45 million for that airport. I will get to that in a moment, but in the meantime is the minister talking about yet another study, an eighteenth study, a twenty-eighth study, a thirty-eighth study-I am not sure which-to assess the need for facilities in Hamilton?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to indicate to my hon. friend what needs to be done.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Another study.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I mentioned the investigation and the discussions with Air Canada on the possibility of-and I do not want to continue-I have said it already. My hon. friend is the first man in the history of Parliament who has apparently refused the thought that the presence of the great people's airline at his airport would be a desirable objective.
Again I do not know how to deal with my hon. friend, because I am trying to be as constructive as one can possibly be. I am trying to help the progress of the Hamilton airport, but I do not seem to be able to reach the hon. member.
In his own contribution to the debate I was referring to a moment ago, he said as reported at page 1052:
The consultant's fees of $220,000 which the Minister of Transport has mentioned, was the amount for the first stage only of the proposed development, that is, the firm conceptual design.
These are going on. What needs to be done is the assessment of what further expenditures need to be dedicated to this airport.
So, I give up, because I have tried everything.
With respect to the commitment of $45 million I do not want to go over it once again. I have done so. What appears in the books to which I have access is that this was an acceptance in principle of the project by the cabinet, so dear to my hon.

May 15, 1980
Supply
friend, of the previous government, and it had not been submitted to the rigours of Treasury Board approvals and so forth, so I can only repeat that, and I have said it already three times.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Chairman, may I challenge the minister on the last point he made first? He has made it repeatedly in this House and, with the greatest of respect to the Minister of Transport, he is dead wrong. That $45 million was in fact submitted to the Treasury Board. It did go through the rigours of Treasury Board approval. It did go through final cabinet approval. It was "go", and it was totally committed. The $220,000 that we spoke of was the first stage of the consultant's firm conceptual design. The minister is correct on that. At least we can agree on that. The $45 million indeed was allocated for Hamilton civic airport.
I might say that since the minister suggested this afternoon that it was because of the restraint program of the government that he is taking another look at these priorities, Hamilton civic airport has obviously sunk very low on the list of the government's priorities. The minister was talking about restraint. He was quite right. That was what we were looking at with a former minister of transport, Otto Lang. The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Hamilton East, talks about adhering to a $100 million campaign commitment by the Liberals of that day. We scaled that down to a $45 million expansion of Hamilton airport for a good, first-class regional facility. I wish the minister would check with his colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton East and, as I said in one of my questions, please try to get his act together in terms of what amount of money the government is willing to spend on the airport.
There is one other point I would like to raise with the minister. I have it on very good authority, and it was confirmed today by an official from Nordair, that that very worth-while regular service into Mount Hope airport may not continue for much longer. Indeed, there was a statement today before an airport committee in Hamilton that Nordair can no longer guarantee that its existing service will be maintained in Hamilton. We have here a very strange situation. As the minister has told this House, he is negotiating with Air Canada. Air Canada says it will move into Mount Hope when and as soon as there is a commitment to expand the airport facilities. However, Nordair-which, incidentally, is owned largely by Air Canada-is saying that unless it gets a commitment very soon, it will pull out of Hamilton airport. That is creating a tremendous amount of confusion, as I think the minister can understand, in the whole Hamilton area amongst civic officials, and the people in the municipalities which I have the honour to represent.
Quite frankly, I am getting fed up with the delays, the confusion and the uncertainty. The minister says he cannot get through to me but, as I say, dealing with him is like shovelling smoke. I cannot get through to him in terms of a commitment which was made not only by the previous Liberal government but also reiterated by our Conservative administration, albeit scaled down from $100 million to $45 million. Now the
minister is suggesting that the whole thing be put on the back burner again, and both promises are broken. I think the minister owes this House, me, and certainly the people of the greater Hamilton-Niagara region an explanation as to when this confusion is going to be cleared up.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I am getting a bit fed up also, so that makes two of us. I want to repeat emphatically that the decision of the previous cabinet was a decision in principle by the cabinet, but it was not the subject of a Treasury Board decision. That is quite clear. If my hon. friend has proof to the contrary, let him bring it to the House and we will fight it out again.
The second point I want to make is that I am almost as dedicated as he is to the success of this project. The necessary amount of money will be allocated to it. If it is $50 million, it will be allocated. So there is no intention on my part to be disagreeable. I am just trying to be responsible, and that is the point I am making now. So whatever amounts of money need to be spent, will be spent. But first we have to find out how much needs to be spent and that is what, humbly and responsibly, I am trying to do.
With respect to the Nordair and Air Canada situation, I will take at face value what my hon. friend is saying. We will explore it, we will talk with the two companies to ensure that the possible decision of Nordair not to stay will not be taken, and that the decision of Air Canada that they might not go on if the facilities are not built will be contradicted by events.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The final point that I will make, Mr. Chairman, is that I hope the minister does not really mean what he says, as he will find when he reads back Hansard on the last statement, that even if the facilities are not built, Air Canada's statement not to move in there will be contradicted. I think that would be upsetting to Air Canada and certainly to the people in my area.
In terms of how much needs to be spent, may I again suggest respectfully that the minister consult with his colleague in cabinet, the hon. member for Hamilton East, to see how they can reconcile the $100 million that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has talked about. Who knows about what amount the minister is speaking? Incidentally, in connection with the $45 million, yes, sir, I do have proof, and I can provide documentary evidence that indeed that was cleared by Treasury Board.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if there was such a decision, the $50 million would be in the present estimates because these are the estimates of the previous administration. So there must be something wrong with the information which my hon. friend is being given.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to the supplementary estimate under Energy, Mines and Resources, in particular to the contribution to the Tidal Power Corporation for a demonstration project for a low-head hydroelectric
May 15, 1980

installation of $12.5 million. It is my understanding that the Annapolis tidal project has been discussed for several years, and I am glad to see today that we are in the process of ratifying, in the supplementary estimates before the House, part of the federal contribution to this project. The grant and contribution come under the item for energy research and technology development, and we are being asked to pass $12.5 million of a total grant of up to $25 million to the Tidal Power Corporation for a demonstration project for a low-head hydroelectric installation.
This power project at the Annapolis causeway is a hydro demonstration program initiated jointly by the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia. The Straflo turbine is a new design of a hydraulic turbine which has been awaiting since 1978 the opportunity for large scale demonstration. This hydraulic turbine has a potential for reducing considerably the capital cost of low and medium-head hydro plants in Canada, as well as improving the economics of tidal generation. At least it should provide some learning lessons on tidal power.
The federal government and the province of Nova Scotia reached an agreement to instal a demonstration project at an estimated cost of $46 million at the Annapolis causeway. Energy benefits to Nova Scotia are estimated at $17.5 million, and a federal grant of up to $25 million is being offered.
The design concept of this unit has been developed by Escher-Syss in Switzerland, and so far it has not been demonstrated at a physical scale that would prove its suitability for the larger generating unit sizes which would be employed in major tidal development or in major river installations. The primary object of the demonstration is thus to obtain its validation of the design in larger sizes and to create the degree of confidence that would allow committing major projects of this design of unit.
The advantage of this design is expected to be substantial savings in the capital cost of civil engineering work required to install the unit in hydroelectric plants, in comparison with the more conventional turbine designs that are now available.
Nova Scotia is to be commended for providing the site for this demonstration and undertaking to make a capital contribution commensurate with the energy benefits that are expected, mainly through the displacement of oil fuel that would be used in the oil production of an equivalent amount of electricity. It should be noted that Nova Scotia takes a financial risk in putting up this capital and being responsible for the cost-management of the project in the unlikely event that the demonstration is unsuccessful.
I notice, Mr. Chairman, that this project is justified on a national basis, but I wonder whether or not the project is dependent. I have been told that this project will replace
85,000	barrels of oil a year out of today's Nova Scotia use of five million barrels of oil a year. I wonder if this benefit of displacement of oil use is dependent on whether the total project is a success. In other words, there may be other aspects of the project that might not be a success due to not being able to use that turbine, but I am wondering if the project will be a
Supply
success for Nova Scotia on the basis of benefits returned for the displacement of oil.
The other aspect of this funding by the federal government was that it would be given on the basis of an initial environmental assessment. Before the federal government would go along with this investment by the province and the federal government in the Tidal Power Corporation, the federal government approved the Martec assessment of environmental and other related issues involved in this project. My concern is that they gave formal approval, and since this project is in my riding, I can say that they gave the formal approval subject to four conditions which I would like to bring to the minister's attention. I should like to hear his comments on whether or not these conditions are being met by the Tidal Power Corporation. As I said, the formal approval of the project was given subject to these four conditions.
The first one was assurances that the Tidal Power Corporation will incorporate reasonable measures to limit the loss of presently productive agricultural land, including losses due to potential increased bank erosion. It is my understanding that in the month of April a survey was done on water levels.
My second question to the minister tonight is on whether we have the results of this water level survey. My understanding is that, due to the spring thaw conditions, perhaps we did not have the level of water necessary to give a full evaluation of the amount of water which would be in the basin necessary for the turbines to be fully operational. I wonder what is tied into this commitment given to the federal government from the Tidal Power Corporation, because the federal government is committing itself tonight to this money under an agreement which was signed in January during the election.
The second condition for giving formal approval to the funding of this project was to undertake, in concert with local and provincial authorities, to plan construction to minimize the strain on the local socioeconomic infrastructure. Again I should like to know whether or not the Tidal Power Corporation is following through on this.
The third matter was to extend a planning role to the existing local farmers' committee to work with the corporation in the planning and running of the early water level tests.
This week I spoke with one farmer who went to a lot of trouble to tile his land. During the month of April his tiles were approximately one foot under water. I am wondering if anyone went to the farmer's land during April while the testing was going on. I would like to know if the Tidal Power Corporation is following through on liaising with the farmers. I think there are about 250 marsh owners in that area.
The last request was to ensure that all reasonable steps were taken with respect to the fish ways. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were here, I am sure he would realize that when one puts a tide gate or blocks any entry way, one must provide a passage way for the fish to go through. According to the concerns of the Department of Fisheries, too many fish may be caught in the turbine. The fishway should be attractive enough

May 15, 1980
Supply
and large enough to bring the fish up that way. I wonder what the force of the water will be and how the fish will manage to get up there. However, these are some of the things for which I thought formal approval was given, pending these four conditions.
I want to save a bit of time in order to get answers to my questions. I really have only two questions, on whether or not the conditions are being adhered to by the Tidal Power Corporation, and what they have done. Also I should like to know whether or not the benefit in oil displacement for electrical energy by this hydro power plant is there, regardless of whether the project is a success in terms of the use of low head turbine.
I suppose another question one would ask is whether we know of any provision for flooding, the process the flooding might take, and its effect. 1 think this would come under the first condition as to the water levels.
Before asking the minister to comment, one other matter which came to my attention today was a press release or a telex in which the premier of Nova Scotia seems to be using extremely strong terms concerning the decision of the federal government not to extend the western natural gas pipeline into the maritimes. Being a member of the government side, I should like to indicate that I have not heard this decision. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the decision that the Government of Canada does not plan to extend the pipeline to the maritimes, as was indicated by Premier Buchanan in his telegram. If that is the case, then perhaps Premier Buchanan is right. But there are a couple of other items in his telex to which I would like to refer.
He implied that the Canadian Transport Commission is refusing EPA. My understanding of the application before CTC is that EPA has appealed and that a decision on the appeal has not come forth. It is somewhat unfair to allow the people of Nova Scotia to think the federal government is oppressive when the procedures have not yet been followed. The premier ended up by saying that he will be in Ottawa next week and that he will be trying to convince the federal cabinet to overturn the decision of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the recommendation of the National Energy Board. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources needs any convincing, I am sure we can do it ourselves. I am sure we do not have to do it ourselves because, after all, we are as concerned as the rest of Canada as to how the energy policy will fit in across Canada.


Mr. Rae:: You do not need any of the other parties at all.


Coline M. Campbell: Perhaps I have taken it out of context, but I think it should be read into the record. I cannot quite imagine if this is Halifax CP Press or CP Telex, but it begins by indicating that "Premier John Buchanan said Thursday"-if the term "said" is used, it has to be CP Press, or it could be CP Air. It reads as follows:
Premier John Buchanan said Thursday the federal government's decision not to extend the western natural gas pipeline into the maritimes will greatly sour relations with Ottawa.
"Nova Scotians are a rather quiet people"-
I agree; we are nice.
It continues:
-"and we like to negotiate ... in a friendly fashion", Buchanan said of the announcement by federal energy minister Marc Lalonde. "But I'll tell you there comes a point when we are ready to dig in our heels and fight. If the federal government of this country will not recognize the unique problems we have here in Atlantic Canada"-
I am pleased he sent this telex right now because we are about to approve a grant of up to $25 million for a project in Nova Scotia; $12.5 million will automatically go toward this tidal power project.
It continues:
-"the unique problems we have here in Atlantic Canada, then quite frankly and honestly I think we're coming to that point right now." He said relations have already been strained because of the continuing confrontation over control of offshore resources. He also criticized the recent decision by the Canadian Transport Commission to give Halifax landing rights to CP Air, although the Nova Scotia government publicly opted for a competing bid from Eastern Provincial Airways.
Certainly everyone in this House would like to support Eastern Provincial Airways; it is an Atlantic company. But there is an appeal procedure, and we will have to wait and see.
It continues:
Buchanan said he will be in Ottawa next week and hopes to convince the federal cabinet to overturn Lalonde's announcement, made on the recommendation of the National Energy Board.
I would like to hear the minister's comments on this matter, but in particular I should like to hear what he has to say on the Tidal Power Corporation which we are funding to the tune of $25 million, as well as the conditions given on formal approval of that agreement.
Really I am concerned about three matters. First, is the oil displacement by this project conditional upon whether or not the total project is a success in terms of a national interest? Second, have the conditions been agreed to by the Tidal Power Corporation in Nova Scotia? Third, will the minister indicate whether or not he has abandoned the idea of a pipeline going east from Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for her knowledge of the situation concerning the tidal power project in her own area. As a matter of fact I must say that she appears to know a lot more than I do about this project, and I congratulate her for it.
I should like to make a comment on this general question. It has to do with the fact that this particular project concerning Annapolis tidal power was signed by the previous government during the election, on January 29, 1980. Indeed that agreement provided for the experiment which the hon. member mentioned. It implies a contribution of $25 million from the federal government toward a total cost of $46 million for this particular project. The plan is to have $25 million paid to Nova Scotia by the federal government in two annual pay-
May 15, 1980

ments of equal amounts, hence the reference in these particular estimates to $12.5 million. This is indeed a significant contribution to the project which is taking place in Nova Scotia. As the hon. member will have noticed, it is well above 50 per cent. This government intends to proceed-provided the House endorses this amount-with contributing to the realization of that particular project.
The hon. member asked a question about oil displacement. Obviously, the oil displacement possibility to which the hon. member referred will take place only if the project is a success. If the project were not a success, we would be back at the drawing board, 1 suspect, and the Tidal Power Corporation of Nova Scotia would be required to develop alternative techniques to use the particular development that will have taken place in the Annapolis Valley. The project is under the direction and control of the Tidal Power Corporation in Nova Scotia.
I am advised that this corporation is a provincial corporation and does not have federal government representatives on the board. The hon. member will understand therefore, that, although I would like to be as well-informed as she is about the details of this particular project, it is essentially a matter which is under the direction of the provincial government of Nova Scotia. I am advised, though, that there is a general agreement providing for federal funding and that federal officials are consulted occasionally about the evolution of this particular project.
As to the specific conditions to which the hon. member referred, I must confess that I am not aware of the details. 1 will inquire, particularly from the government of Nova Scotia or Tidal Power Corporation, as to exactly what they have done with regard to those conditions and as to what point they are at with regard to this matter. I will be very happy to provide the hon. member with any information I can obtain from the authorities in Nova Scotia. I can tell the hon. member that an environmental advisory board and technical committees will be established to interface with the corporation to ensure that a number of studies dealing with the environment are carried out with the best possible advice.
I am also advised that the particular corporation has committed itself to keep the local public informed and to seeking their views as planning progresses on this project. 1 am sure that the hon. member will not hesitate to bring this matter to my attention if, for any reason, she were not getting satisfactory information either from myself or from the provincial authority or Tidal Power Corporation.
As to the hon. member's last point concerning the gas pipeline project to eastern Canada, as she may know, and as hon. members no doubt know, by law, reports from the National Energy Board can be either accepted or rejected by cabinet, but they cannot be modified as such. We have received a report from the National Energy Board which has recommended that the natural gas system be immediately extended beyond Montreal to Quebec City. However, with
Supply
regard to the other part of the project, which was an extension to the maritime provinces, the National Energy Board has raised two concerns or objections which they felt should be resolved before considering and approving the extension of the pipeline to the maritime provinces.
The first point involves environmental studies which, in the opinion of the board, have not been fully carried out by the Quebec and Maritime Corporation. It is the view of the National Energy Board that they should obtain better environmental assessments before giving consideration to the Q and M project. They have indicated that, in their opinion, the Q and M Corporation had not carried out sufficient environmental studies. Indeed, we hope that Q and M will proceed as quickly as possible to developing the necessary work in order to ensure that any extension of the pipeline meets our environmental standards.
The second point raised by the National Energy Board was to the effect that the application put forward by the Quebec and Maritime Corporation did not adequately consider potential offshore development. They also stated that there should be an extended pause in order to obtain further information about offshore potential, particularly with regard to Sable Island, and at that point it would be more appropriate to consider the application of Q and M. Then everybody would be in a better position on what would be more advisable, whether the gas pipeline should be built from Quebec City to Halifax with immediate reversible capacity, or whether in the end gas would be flowing, not from west to east but, instead, the happy development of natural gas flowing from east to west.
These are the reasons which are given by the National Energy Board in their report to the government. The government has considered that report and has accepted it. As I indicated, as a government we had the option of either rejecting the report or accepting it. We have accepted it, and this means that at least part of the pipeline, that part from Montreal to Quebec City, can be undertaken without further delay. We still consider the maritime extension of the pipeline a matter of high priority.
We indicated in the Speech from the Throne that the government favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritime provinces. We indicated that we were awaiting the report of the National Energy Board on this project. Naturally, I would have been happy if the recommendation had been to proceed immediately with the extension to the maritime provinces.
I raised this issue with the premier of Nova Scotia last week and with the officials and ministers of New Brunswick. I must report that the New Brunswick government has indicated before the energy board, and reiterated last week, the concern that things are proceeding too fast and that there is no time to examine all the alternatives available to the pipeline itself. The government of New Brunswick wanted to be sure that any pipeline that was built would indeed bring to the consumers of the maritime provinces an alternative to oil, that that alternative would be the most efficient and that they would not pay

May 15, 1980
Supply
more for what they would get in the end than what they would pay for another alternative.
I also raised the possibility of a report along those lines with the Premier of Nova Scotia last week. Efe did not indicate at that time the feelings which he seems to have indicated in the CP story. I will certainly be happy to meet with him if he comes to Ottawa next week. I want to tell him he should realize, however, that such a project does not affect only Nova Scotia, that there are two other maritime provinces involved.
There have been some views expressed by the government of New Brunswick. I have noticed, even in Nova Scotia, that there are people who are concerned that the development which takes place be good for the consumers and workers of that province, and not just a project imposed upon the maritime provinces. I noticed, for instance, that the steel workers in Cape Breton, showed their support today for the position of the federal government by saying in effect that the Nova Scotia government should bear in mind the interests of the workers, the advisability of further coal development, and a careful examination of all the alternatives. They also said that careful attention should be given to the possibility of a substantial gas find off Sable Island.
As I said, this government still believes that the construction of the pipeline to the maritimes is a project that should receive priority consideration. I hope that the Q and M Corporation is going to proceed with the work that is required from it in the environmental field and that we will also be able to have further information as soon as possible concerning the possible discoveries of natural gas off Sable Island. It is our intention to try to develop ways and means to speed up explorations in this area and to try to get the relative information at the earliest possible moment, after which I hope we will get a positive report from the National Energy Board.
I hope these few comments will answer the points raised by the hon. member. I shall not comment further on the more histrionic part of the statement by the premier of her province at this time.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Chairman, my comments tonight are again directed to the Minister of Transport. I have to say that I enjoyed some of the very humorous remarks this evening and the sort of soft shoe approach. I admit that I got lost in the fog along with the Canadian merchant fleet.
I should like to return to the topic of search and rescue on the west coast and the department's role in that particular endeavour.


An hon. Member:: Two rowboats!


Raymond John Skelly: Before doing that I should like to go back to an incident that occurred off the east coast of Newfoundland where 13 Dutch seamen drowned from the Dutch ship, The Gabriella. I would remind the minister that as the result of the tragic death of those 13 people, his government built a search and rescue base and equipped it with three helicopters. They
also took some action to rationalize search and rescue in Canada. There were attempts to co-ordinate the S and R committee and things along that line.
I should like to refer to another incident which took place on the west coast of Canada in British Columbia and compare it with the incident in Newfoundland. In the two weeks over the Christmas period in 1979, just a few months ago, 42 people died as a result of the sinking of a Panamanian freighter, a fishing vessel, and a few other incidents.
One of the things that came out of this, which matches the event in Newfoundland, was the complete failure of government capability to provide a rescue platform into the area. Again, figures become a problem but, as I recall, the distress call came in about 9 in the morning. They managed to get one of the helicopters of the Department of Transport to the site at 1.15. The problem was that, after four hours in the water, any who survived the sinking were dead from exposure. The sinking of the vessel, the Lee Wan Zing, was a tragic event. From anything that people in British Columbia can determine, the department has done absolutely nothing about this; it has sat on the case for four months. I believe the Department of National Defence has taken what appears to be some concrete action by cutting back the search and rescue helicopter upgrading program. The minister had the courage the other day to say it was adequate and even improving!
I should like to ask the minister one very simple question. As Minister of Transport can he assure the House that the government has done nothing, or the fact that the government has done nothing about those 42 deaths has nothing to do with the fact that those people were Taiwanese seamen and Canadian Indians? Can the minister give the House the assurance that the government has done nothing and it is related to that fact?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend seems to be in a pugnacious mood-"said nothing," "done nothing," and what not. I just want to repeat what I heard this morning, that the search and rescue facility is a major preoccupation of the Department of Transport and it is still a major one for the Department of National Defence. As my hon. friend knows, the first responsibility is theirs. We support that effort to the best of our capabilities.
I do not think he should emphasize so strongly that nothing is being done. As a matter of fact, in the present estimates nine vessels are being added to the search and rescue support facilities, one of them in Campbell River, B.C., a crash boat in the west Strait of Georgia, B.C., and one of them at Prince Rupert, so the effort is expanding. In a nutshell, we do the best we can with what we have, and what we have is improving. Canada is tremendously-


An hon. Member:: There is money for fighter planes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If ever they need to use those planes, the very people who say we do not need them now would be hiding somewhere. The situation is improving and the estimates tonight demonstrate that. We are trying to improve our rela-
May 15, 1980

tionship with DND so as to make our efforts as well coordinated as possible and similarly with the United States, a country with which co-operation is apparently of the first magnitude. Again, with the geography we have and with the extent of our coasts as well as four inland waters, there are limitations to the quality of the job that can be done.
I am sure my hon. friend will realize that to do a perfect job for that distance would cost billions.


An hon. Member:: $10 million.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What?


Raymond John Skelly: If I might elaborate, Mr. Chairman, this demonstrates the dilemma. The Minister of Transport really does not grasp the basic concept. His former colleague from Skeena had been beating away at the government for five years trying to tell them the service is totally inadequate. The minister referred to the 21 metre vessel program, but that is to meet an entirely different need. Its only capability is an inshore capability; it cannot be taken out in Dixon Entrance or Queen Charlotte Sound in extremely rough water. Also, it cannot be delivered there. A person will die in that water within 35 minutes.
There is a program that could be developed, however. There are 14 helicopters on the west coast of Canada but they are used in an erratic fashion. If they were to be moved to the Canadian forces station at Holbrook or Masset-the capability of the Sikorsky which is a perfect marine helicopter for distribution along the coast-that equipment could be moved anywhere on the coast in 35 minutes. The service could cover from Sitka, Alaska, to Port Angeles in 35 minutes.
I have had a chance to discuss this with Boeing, who handle the CHI 13, and with the Sikorsky people. Rough and dirty figures, estimated on the high side, are that the relocation of that equipment would cost less than $10 million. That is the high side, rough and dirty figure. If the minister does not believe my figures he can check with the companies.
The 21 metre vessel will not be adequate in a situation such as the one with the Lee Wan Zing. If that is not enough to impress the government and the department that vital changes have to be made now, I would remind them that Iona Campag-nolo has said, as many others have, that there is a real problem. The government has missed the point completely. At any rate, I suspect it will take the sinking of the Queen of Prince Rupert or something of that nature to really drive the point home.
The B.C. transportation agreement is another very serious concern for the people of British Columbia. There are many Indian communities along the coast and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will appreciate some of the dilemmas they face. A former minister of transport, Otto Lang, made an agreement with the government of B.C. as a result of which the service of Northland Navigation, which served the entire coast, was scrapped. In return, Mr. Lang approached the premier of British Columbia and gave him $8 million as a subsidy for transportation. They placed a clause in
Supply
that agreement which says that the province of British Columbia agrees that in accepting the federal government subsidy as provided herein for ferry and coastal freight and passenger service in B.C. coastal waters, it will assure reasonable and adequate service and appropriate supervision thereof.
The Queen of Prince Rupert, the only vessel travelling up and down that coast, was stopped from serving the coast of B.C. on April 6. It is expected that the ferry service might return on June 1, but it will be a different vessel, the Queen of the North, but there is absolutely no guarantee about that.
Indian communities up and down that coast, as well as other communities, have all been cut off from services. The only way out is by air and the cost is roughly $180 return per person. The freight rates that are coming in are enormous. The government of British Columbia certainly has not lived up to the intent of that particular clause.
I would propose that the minister compare both coasts of Canada, and ignore for the moment the constitutional requirements by looking at how the federal government fulfils its transportation responsibility through a subsidy program. On the east coast of Canada a rough figure on a per capita basis is $44 while in B.C. the per capita figure is $4. Considering some of the very disruptive moves made by the minister's predecessor that have totally disrupted the service on the coast of B.C., and an example is Northland Navigation. Another area of that department that built a $1 million wharf at Bella Coola to service vessels suddenly cut the line of service off to it. The Minister of Indian Affairs, who has been pouring millions of dollars into economic development in Indian communities to solve things like massive unemployment because of the loose and ragged nature of the agreement with the government of B.C., in a sort of abrogation of reponsibility has suddenly said that that is it for nine weeks, in the middle of the fishing and tourist season.
The government of B.C. decided to close down the community of Ocean Falls, which is right smack in the middle, and it depends absolutely on that ferry service. The town was closed down. Roughly 400 people to this point in time have been laid off, and there is no ferry to haul their goods in or out. They cannot fly their goods in or out; they must be barged in at a tremendously expensive rate.
I would urge the minister to end the subsidy to B.C. In fact, stop it right now because the government of B.C. has failed to live up to that agreement. It is a strange thing for a person from British Columbia to say, but I would urge the minister to go to British Columbia, open the negotiations with that province and come to a conditional agreement that provides specifically what services will be provided to what communities and on what basis. Then, for your part, offer a fair subsidy, a subsidy which is somewhere nearly comparable to what is offered on the east coast of Canada. I would like to hear your reaction to that approach.

May 15, 1980
Supply


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I will be fairly brief because I do not want to take the time of others.
On the first point of rescue operations, I listened carefully to what was said by my hon. friend. This will probably be looked at and analysed, and questions will be asked on the subject. Thank you very much for that particular contribution.
On the subject of ferries, my friend makes too easy a comparison between the west and the east coasts of Canada. On the west coast these are intra-provincial operations. Consequently, there was good justification for the Canadian government to make the agreement it made with B.C. so that it would exercise the normal provincial jurisdiction in these matters.
I do not think it could be constitutionally valid for the federal government, once these agreements have been made, to spend the time supervising and looking over the shoulder of provincial authorities to see if they live up to the standards of the central government. If there is some chastisement to be done, it will be done by the people of the province in one way or the other, presumably at election time. I just want to emphasize the danger of making too easy a comparison between the west coast and the east coast because these ferries on the east coast cross over provincial boundaries.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Chairman, the point escapes me. We were dealing with a situation where the federal government was involved before. It did recognize the responsibility and now it does not. I am sure a conditional agreement would be the thing. Even the minister's predecessor in the other government said that the criticism had grown to such a level that he was seriously considering some kind of action to get conditional arrangements.
I would like to move to one other area respecting the coast of British Columbia that affects the entire coast, and it shows the philosophy of the government toward transportation. There are two small islands halfway up the coast of British Columbia, about 200 miles from each end. One is Campbell Island and the other is Denny Island. On the Campbell Island live 1,200 Indian people in an Indian community. On Denny Island, a short distance away, live 50 people.
Some years ago the Department of Transport did a study having to do with an airport on the central coast. The reasoning was that there is no facility from which a search and rescue base can operate. I think we lost 100 aircraft last year and a number of fishing boats suffered loss of life. However, if helicopters work that area, they must work out of Port Hardy, which is over 100 miles away, or alternatively, from a place called Sandspit which is a tremendous distance away and so is not effective. That area is also a major flyway, not only for geese but also for aircraft going back and forth from Alaska to the southern states. There is also a tremendous amount of Canadian aircraft using the air space but there is nowhere for these aircraft to land. As a matter of fact, a plane flying from Alaska was caught short of fuel in the middle of a storm and heavy headwinds and the pilot had to land in a school yard on
Campbell Island. That is a very dangerous situation. There is nothing from Sandspit to Port Hardy.
The area has international flavour and it has search and rescue flavour. But the crazy situation is that this government has been saying that it is not its responsibility, that it is the responsibility of the government of British Columbia. On the other hand, B.C. said it is not its responsibility and will not become involved, saying it is federal responsibility. What has happened is that 1,250 people on two separate islands have started to build two airports. The Indian community is working on an airport and the other community is doing the same thing. In my opinion this is sheer stupidity. This is because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have pumped millions of dollars into the Indian community to develop economic projects there and to provide employment. The community on Campbell Island has a hospital and the RCMP. It strikes me that that would be the logical community to develop. But two airports will probably be built and waste precious, valuable resources because both governments just keep passing the buck back and forth.
I know that the federal government and the minister are very concerned about the spending of funds to provide decent services for people. However, if the federal government was to build an airport there, it would be a tremendous cost reduction for the people of B.C. and a tremendous boost to safety, as well as giving immeasurable help to the Indian community.
I would urge the minister to look at the study, to examine it once again and then negotiate a settlement so those communities can co-operate and build a second airport. I would urge the minister to support the project on Campbell Island because of population facilities and the basic need. I ask the minister to please break this impasse.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not have anything particular to contribute. This airport is looked upon as provincial responsibility and treated as such. Again, my hon. friend is suggesting for the second time that we should take over provincial responsibility, at least this is the way I read him. There are so many things to be done in B.C. and elsewhere that are clearly federal responsibility and we are satisfied with that. However, I am very grateful for the advice given by my hon. friend, particularly with respect to the previous subject.


Mr. Bachand:: Mr. Chairman, my questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My three questions relate to the contract for the purchase of the F-18 aircraft. Here is my first question: Can the minister say whether there have been new developments since the F-18 was chosen or can he give details about the sites chosen for the establishment of two important projects, that is a General Electric plant for the manufacturing of blades and vanes that had been promised to the eastern townships, and a digital control machining centre that had been promised to Quebec?
May 15, 1980

My second question is: Is the minister still convinced the estimate of $1.5 billion of economic benefits for Quebec is realistic?
Mr. Chairman, my third question is this: Is it true that during the negotiations the PQ government minister, Mr. Duhaime not to name him, was given an opportunity to come and see the F-16 and F-18 file, and that he did not avail himself of that opportunity?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Chairman, it is my view that our analysis of the economic spinoffs for the province of Quebec of the F-18 contract is very realistic. In our view, at least 48 per cent of these spinoffs will be located in the province of Quebec.
As we are all aware, the province of Quebec holds a very important place in this government's mind as far as the avionics industry is concerned. We intend to make the Quebec component of that industry a leading sector, while strengthening the industry throughout the country.
The hon. member also asked for details on the possible sites for the turbine blade and vane plant and the digital control machining centre. I can confirm to my hon. colleague that, quite evidently, the turbine blade and vane facility will be built in the eastern townships, although the exact site has not been determined yet. I regret to give the same answer as far as the site for the machining centre is concerned.
In his third question, my hon. colleague asked whether the PQ minister was given an opportunity to consult all the data on which was based our decision to award McDonnell Douglas the F-18 contract. According to my information, those ministers were offered a briefing just before the announcement. But later they were also given an opportunity to have exchanges and discussions between our officers and those of the Quebec government.
I would like to conclude my answer by confirming that in our view, and according to our rather involved analysis, the F-18 contract is a good opportunity for the industry in the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to ask a few questions this evening. Before doing so, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I think this is the first time in my 23 years in the House of Commons that I have seen such a distinguished panel of ministers. All four are such a temptation-


An hon. Member:: Like a shooting gallery.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: An hon. member says like a shooting gallery. I am not quite sure I know where to begin. To put it in the language of the people I represent, I think perhaps in light of what I heard today someone, perhaps it falls on me, should attempt to get this government back on course. It is obvious it is off course. It has lost its sense of direction and is out there
Supply
wandering around in a fog of uncertainty not knowing where it is going.
I say that because during the recent election campaign we saw some pretty heavy brass. We had more Liberal brass in Nova Scotia-some could have come to see me, but they did not, they went to see others-than we have flotsam and jetsam along the coast. There was a lot of talk about energy, a lot of talk about oil, and we even had a lot of gas down that way. Before I place my question-


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have 20 minutes sir. You had the same amount of time. I think I can use it any way I choose. I hope I am correct. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicates that I am correct. I read from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Saturday, February 2:
In the most major speech of the campaign to date, in Halifax last Friday, the Liberals through their leader Pierre Trudeau presented the Liberal's energy program for the 80s. A program designed to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians. The Liberal program featured the following seven major commitments.
I will not read them all because the Liberals are well aware of them, even though they are not introducing them. One reads:
Liberals realize Canada needs to substitute plentiful resources such as natural gas for the energy resources we are short of like oil. Therefore under "Made in Canada" policies, natural gas will not be pegged to rising international prices. It will be set at a lower made-in-Canada level to encourage people to switch. Massive exports as those endorsed by Joe Clark would be thoroughly investigated so Canadians would always have first claim to their own natural gas resource.
There would be a natural gas pipeline to ensure all Canadians access to their resources.
Liberals would take immediate action-
I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources listens carefully to this.
-to begin negotiations for construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes. Initially it would carry natural gas east but when maritime supplies are ready, the pipeline would be like a natural gas railroad with a return delivery facility as well.
On the same date the Prime Minister appeared in Halifax. I read just a short excerpt from his speech:
But in order to switch, people must have access to gas. Nowhere is access needed more than in eastern Canada. I am announcing today, as part of our program, that a Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes. The pipeline will have reversible capacity-
I presume this was made with the full knowledge of the National Energy Board.
-so that maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use western natural gas now and to send offshore gas to central Canada later. Like the railroad in the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
That is a very fine promise, a very fine pledge. For a starter, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how does he reconcile his speech today with the undertaking, firm pledge and promise made by the Prime Minister in Halifax.
1 140

May 15, 1980
Supply


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the opportunity of answering the question raised by the hon. member. I am glad to see that he is such a faithful reader of Liberal policy. Indeed, he read exactly and quite accurately the statement of the Prime Minister.
As I indicated, this government believes that a gas pipeline extending all the way to Halifax and Cape Breton is a matter of high priority. We stated in the campaign, as the hon. member read, that a Liberal government would take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes.
As soon as we received the report from the National Energy Board, immediate consideration was given to it in cabinet. After extensive consideration of the matter in cabinet, a decision was rendered today to accept the conclusion of the Energy Board report as a first and major step in the realization of the full pipeline about which the hon. member talked.
The hon. member will realize, once he has had an opportunity to consult, the reasons for the decision of the National Energy Board. I recommend to him particularly pages 6-127, 8-49, and 11-6. He will see, for instance, that the government of New Brunswick, as I indicated, has expressed some concern about, in particular, the environmental and economic aspects of this project. The Energy Board has suggested, as I have indicated, that further examination be made of the environmental aspects of this project and also that consideration be given to the economics of offshore natural gas. As far as the government is concerned we are asking Q and M to carry on those environmental studies as expeditiously as possible so the people of the maritimes are assured that there will not be serious damage to the environment by the construction of this project.
In the second place, we intend to study ways and means, with the corporations concerned, to determine whether the exploration off Sable Island could not be accelerated in order that as soon as possible we might be in a position to make a final decision on the realization of the whole pipeline. We are determined there will be no lessening of our drive to convert Atlantic Canada from oil, but we want to do this in co-operation with all the provinces concerned-I do not think we should run roughshod over any province in a matter as important as this. We should also make sure that this is the best decision for the residents of the maritimes.
As I said, we are attaching a very high priority to this question. We are determined that the pause which is being requested by the Energy Board will be as short as possible, and we intend to do everything we can to see to it that the short time taken in obtaining the information which is required will not result in a delay in scheduled delivery of natural gas to the maritimes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the minister for that answer. For his information, I have been reading the National Energy Board's
decision of May 15. There are some interesting contradictions in that report as, I am sure, he will agree. For example, I find one on page 11:
The board wishes to stress that Q and M has not satisfied the Board that the pipeline could be constructed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
I could not help but wonder why this would be so. Then again, I note at the bottom of page 11-10:
The board believes that the evidence adduced on offshore resources raised significant uncertainties as to the configuration of the Q and M pipeline and the board is not satisfied that the pipeline facilities proposed to be built and operated by the Q and M are and will be required by the present and future convenience and necessity.
That statement raises considerable doubt in my mind, despite all the promises made by the Prime Minister and the minister of energy, that we shall ever see this natural gas pipeline in Halifax. So I should like to know, and perhaps the minister can give me an idea, how many millions he estimates it will cost to cushion Nova Scotia's electricity costs against rising oil prices, say, for the next seven or eight years, since we are dependent on expensive foreign oil for the generation of something like 70 per cent of the energy required by industries in Nova Scotia. How much does the minister estimate this is likely to cost, and where does he believe the money will come from?


Marc Lalonde: On the subject of the pipeline itself, the hon. member has quoted a certain section of this report, but I might point out that the report goes on to mention that the information obtained from the east coast offshore areas should determine what type of pipeline ought to be built later on. As far as the environment is concerned, the hon. member was wondering on what basis the Energy Board was making its conclusion. Surely, it was making it on the basis of the evidence which it had received. But it is interesting to note that on page 6-127 ten different, specific areas are mentioned about which the board is requesting Q and M, the Quebec and Maritime Corporation, to come up with environmental studies and additional information. So there are numerous areas where it appears to the board that further environmental information is required.
As to the point raised by the hon. member concerning oil-generated electricity, he is quite right in saying that the cost is high. He mentions that the high costs result from the need to import oil supplies. However, I am sure he knows that this imported oil is paid for by all Canadians, thanks to policies established by a Liberal government in 1974. Consequently, Canadians are paying for their oil a price which is well below the world price or the international price or the price of imported oil, and the citizens of Nova Scotia are benefiting from this national policy of a single price for all Canadians below the world price. We have fought for this policy. We campaigned in the last election for this policy, and I hope we will get the support of the hon. member's party, or, at any rate, of members of his party coming from the maritimes, for our policy which aims at establishing a price in Canada which is not tied to world prices.
May 15, 1980

Nonetheless, even at prices which are lower than world prices, the production of electricity from oil in Nova Scotia is expensive. The hon. member asks how much it costs. That will depend, obviously, on the forecast of prices he makes. It will depend mainly on the kind of agreement we can get with the government of Alberta. I can tell him that at my last meeting with the government of his province, the government of that province presented me with a potential bill of $555 million representing federal subsidies they would like to obtain over the next seven years solely for the cushioning of the cost of its oil-generated electricity and helping in the transformation from oil. This is over half a billion dollars for the province of Nova Scotia alone.
At that time I indicated that indeed this was a matter we were ready and willing to look at, because it is essential that the electricity produced in Nova Scotia be "off oil" but obviously the federal government needed to have the resources from any future oil agreement which would allow it to help a province like Nova Scotia.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Basically, what the minister has told the committee tonight is that when campaigning, and this includes all the Liberals who campaigned in Nova Scotia, he and his colleagues were aware, as the Prime Minister must have been aware, of the views of the National Energy Board as they apply to this problem. In effect they railroaded the people of Nova Scotia with that promise. I stress the point that there is no equivocation in that speech by the Prime Minister. The words are: "We will immediately bring that gas pipeline to Halifax". That is the statement, and it has been indicated tonight that it was nothing more than an election promise.
I will go on to two other questions. I have more if my time permits, but I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he is prepared at some future time to indicate to the National Energy Board, in support of a re-application of Q and M, that he is prepared to subsidize the cost of the transmission of gas to the maritimes in the same way that the government now subsidizes domestic oil shipped to Montreal.
I do not want to ignore the entire panel, so while I am on my feet I would like to leave one with-somebody is calling out "stop". If he does not wish to participate in the hearings here this evening, he is free to leave or he is free to rise and seek to ask a question. I do not like being interrupted, and if the hon. member would stand and indicate who he is-


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore has the floor.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you will keep the rabble on the other side quiet because this is a committee-


An hon. Member:: Shut up.
Supply


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He says I should shut up, Mr. Chairman. I think you should ask him to withdraw that. That is not being very parliamentary or constructive.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Out, Olivier.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, perhaps he should leave because he is suffering from pain in the belly or something.
I have a very simple question for the President of the Treasury Board. Would he give us an update on the privatization program for certain Crown corporations? Maybe I could have both of those answers in sequence.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, first, I am sorry that the hon. member has distorted so obviously the statement that he himself quoted at the beginning of his own intervention. He read it into the record, and I am sure the public will be able to see his statement for what it is, a straight distortion of a statement made by the Prime Minister. The statement he just made is completely false, and he should withdraw it.
When the hon. member reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that the words he read into the record were not attributed to this party or to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, and I quote again for the record, in case the hon. member forgot what he himself read, "A Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes".


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That's right.


Marc Lalonde: That is on the record. That is what we stand by, and that is our commitment. We are not welshing or withdrawing from that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, in order to ensure the full co-operation of the parties concerned, I have already consulted with the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and I have already reported to this House on some of the issues and the problems.
The hon. member should remember that in January and February his party was in office. He must have remembered that, although he may not have had the chance of participating very much in that government.


An hon. Member:: He was in New Zealand.


Marc Lalonde: I am advised that he was in New Zealand at the time, but I do not think it is true. He was campaigning in his riding like an honest candidate.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am still here.


Marc Lalonde: However, how dare he say to this House that we knew what was going on at the National Energy Board and what the conclusions of the National Energy Board were? The National Energy Board was either still holding its hearings or was considering the evidence. We were in the opposition. I

May 15, 1980
Supply
hope even the government of the day was not made aware of the current deliberations of the National Energy Board. That would have been quite improper and incorrect. We were acquainted with the conclusions of the National Energy Board when the National Energy Board report was given to the government some time in April. The cabinet since has had time to read the report, examine it and weigh its arguments, and we have come to the conclusion that the best way to ensure progress in the realization of the whole projet is to endorse and accept the report of the National Energy Board because, as the hon. member knows, our choice under the law is either to accept or reject that report.
By accepting it, we are ensuring that at least part of the line is going to be built. It will reach Quebec City.
As soon as it is finished and if the National Energy Board, after having held hearings, comes with further recommendations, and if Q and M makes a further application and there is a positive recommendation, I hope the cabinet would endorse it, and we would be in a much better position to realize the full line in time for the people of the maritimes to benefit from the realization of this project. That is our approach, that is our policy, and I believe it is a very honest, realistic and reasonable approach to this issue. In his last intervention I do not think the hon. member interpreted the situation adequately or fairly.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Shore has asked me to provide an update, as I understand it, on the so-called privatization plans which, as many hon. members will recall, were initiated back in 1976 by the Liberal administration, the idea being to examine certain Crown corporations and also certain operations of government which might be susceptible to transfer to the private sector.
As I recall, deputies were asked to identify certain areas, and a number of corporations were on the list and were being reviewed prior to the change of government. I just say that because I believe my predecessor, the hon. member for York-Peel, often portrays himself as being the father of privatization, which he is not.
In any event, my predecessor did commission a review of five Crown corporations and the evaluation of those corporations by independent consultants, being First Boston Corporation and A. E. Ames. The corporations in question which were the subject of those studies were the CDC, de Havilland, Canadair, Northern Transportation and, I believe, Eldorado. We have received a preliminary evaluation of the CDC from A. E. Ames, and we expect to receive further evaluations within the very near future on all of these five Crown corporations.
With respect to what steps we have taken, we have taken none other than to wait for these reports to come to us, and also to suspend-but not disband-the advisory committee, which was appointed by my predecessor, under the chairmanship of Mr. Derek Hannaford.
The matter has not been abandoned, but it is not an idealological issue with us on this side of the House. We look
at the question of privatization in the whole context of achieving greater efficiency in government.
[ Translation]


Denis Éthier: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to the terms of the order made Tuesday, April 29, 1980, it is my duty to put forthwith-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be a disposition for the House to continue a little further with the examination. I note that it is not ten o'clock. I know what the Standing Orders are, but I wonder if there might be a disposition to allow the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, who has been very patiently waiting, to ask questions of the ministers. I wonder if the ministers, now that they are here with their officials, would accommodate him.


Denis Éthier: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton seeks the unanimous consent of the House to carry questioning on for some time.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised by the request made by my hon. colleague. I would like to accommodate him, but if I create a precedent by accommodating one of my colleagues, whom I respect very much, I would place myself in a very bad position because several members who wanted to speak have not been able to do so precisely because the time allotted is rather limited, even though we must admit that we have had a very good day's work. In view of the circumstances, I would not like to be unfair towards other members. Yesterday, I stated unequivocally that I considered all members on both sides of the House as equal. I believe I would be going against this principle if I allowed an opposition member to speak, without doing the same for my colleagues who would like to do so and without the House being able to adjourn before midnight, or else very late this evening. There has been an agreement, and all I want to do is keep to it. Next fall, there will be days when the House will sit in Committee of the Whole, sometimes until midnight. I believe we have been more than reasonable, and I am convinced that my hon. colleague will understand the position I am taking this evening in the name of fairness, and I call on his good judgment to understand my attitude.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the difficulty consists just of choosing one member and not being fair to other members. Perhaps the minister might consider the committee sitting until eleven o'clock, taking the chance that many members can be heard. It is very difficult for us to find a chance to ask the ministers questions, other than the brief ones during the question period. We have the ministers here and their officials
May 15, 1980

are here, the hockey game is probably over, so there is no reason why we could not continue sitting in the interest of examining some of the estimates further until eleven o'clock. I would ask the minister to consider that.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton put the question as to whether there might be unanimous consent to continue. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Denis Éthier: Clearly there is not unanimous consent.
It being 9.50 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, April 29, 1980, to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill.
Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 3 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 6 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall schedule A carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall schedule B carry?
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall schedule C carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall schedule D carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause I carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Preamble agreed to on division.


Denis Éthier: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, excuse me for troubling you. I would like to inquire about the Standing Order. Is it customary to pass $20 billion when there are exactly 20 members opposite in the House? The opposition is away.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the hon. member rises on a point of order, I assume it is an appeal to the rules. I do not think the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) expects the Chair to rule on that as a point of order.
It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 9.54 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.