Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):

1. The

Canadian Dairy Commission maintains the information required to answer this part of the question in confidence. The release of this information could infringe upon the right of privacy of the producer as it could form the basis of determining income or establishing a mailing list of all milk producers. However, the total production by province is as follows:

Million hundredweights of milk

1974-75 1975-76

Prince Edward Island 1.37 1.53Nova Scotia .84 1.06New Brunswick .68 .68Quebec 47.13 55.61Ontario 29.83 36.13Manitoba 4.13 4.37Saskatchewan 2.29 2.44Alberta 6.51 7.44British Columbia 2.74 3.54Canada 95.52 112.80

2. The allocation of market quotas to producers is the responsibility of the provincial milk marketing boards and the information is not available to the commission.

Was the Treasury Board's policy decision to change accounting practices for the 1975-76 fiscal year, as referred to in the reply of the Secretary of State to Question No. 1,059, carried forward to the 1976-77 fiscal year and (a) if so, what is the reason for the substantial drop in the Purchased Repair and Upkeep estimated for the Department in the 1976-77 Main Estimates from the 1975-76 levels (b) if not, what is the reason for the substantial increase in the Purchased Repair and Upkeep estimated for the Department in the 1976-77 Main Estimates over the 1974-75 level before the accounting policy changed?

Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):

Treasury Board has issued two policy directives to this department relating to accounting practices during the period in question. The first policy directive was in 1975; this directive authorized DPW to recover its costs for certain tenant services to this department; these included the costs of fitting-up new, leased accommodation needed for the expansion of the translation bureau in the Quebec region. In accordance with the procedures provided by DPW and the definition of the Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep which were affected under this directive, the Department of the Secretary of State estimated $1.7 million as a cost payable to DPW for Tenant Services. That same directive was not carried over into 1976-77; a new directive was issued in early 1976 which revised the definition of Tenant Services. On the basis of these revised guidelines, DPW was directed once again to absorb the fitting-up cost of new, leased accommodation and the Department of the Secre-

August 4, 1977

tary of State estimated that $296,000 would be payable to DPW for Tenant Services, (a) It is this revision which accounts for the sizeable decrease from the 1975-76 figures, (b) The reason for the increase in the Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep in the 1976-77 Main Estimates over the 1974-75 level is that T.B. guidelines, as per the second policy directive, require that the Department include these costs in its departmental estimates whereas in 1974-75 these costs were included in DPW estimates. It is to be noted, however, that the figure is lower than for 1975-76 since Treasury Board revised the original definition of the cost of Tenant Services. In summary, the figures for the three years in question are as follows: 1974-75 (Tenant Services portion of Purchased Repair and Upkeep absorbed by DPW) $3,000. 1975-76 T.B. issued 1st directive $1,700,000. 1976-77 T.B. issued 2nd directive (but definition of Tenant Services redefined) $296,000.

1. Is Mr. Daniel Coates employed by the government or any of its agencies and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) what is his salary range?

2. For each year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many times was Mr. Coates reimbursed for travel expenses by the government or any of its agencies and, in

Order Paper Questions

each case (i) what was the amount (ii) what was the origin, destination and purpose of each related trip (iii) under whose prior authorization was each trip undertaken (iv) under whose authorization was each payment for travel expenses made?

3. For each year (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976, how many times were payments by the government or any of its agencies for charges on credit cards taken out by departments or agencies in the name of Mr. Coates and, in each case (i) what was the amount (ii) for what specific purposes were the charges made (iii) under whose prior authorization were these charges incurred (iv) under whose authorization was each payment of these credit card expenses made?

4. Has the government or any of its agencies ever paid for the moving expenses of Daniel Coates and, if so, in each case (a) what was the amount (b) to whom (c) what was the origin and destination of the objects moved?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned-1. Mr. D. Coates is (a) Special Advisor to the Chairman; (b) $31,500 to $41,500.

2. (a) See list below, (b) See list below, (c) Nil.

3. (a) 9. (i) $945.00. (ii) Air transportation costs. See 2(a)(ii). (iii) See 2 (a) (iii). (iv) See 2(a)(iv). (b) 2 (i) $295.00-$284.00. (ii) See 2(b)(ii). Parts 3 and 4. (iii) See 2(b)(iii). Parts 3 and 4. (iv) See 2(b)(iv). Parts 3 and 4. (c) Nil.

4. No.

2(a)-1974

(i)

Reimbursed Travel Expenses (ii) Origin Destination Purpose (iv) (iii) Payment of Travel Authority Expenses1. S 19.75 Ottawa Toronto Meeting with U.I.C. Officials No listing for D. Coates was found in Public2. $ 22.00 Ottawa Vancouver Meeting with U.I.C. Officials Archives records based on 1974. However D. J. Steele and G. Cousineau were the only officers authorizing and approving these trips.3. $ 79.15 4. $ 44.50 Ottawa Ottawa Montreal Management Conference Cambridge, Mass. Attendance as Research Fellow at John F. 5. $ 5.95 Ottawa Vancouver Kennedy School of Government Graduate School of Education Harvard University Taxi charge omitted from earlier claim 6.$ 16.38 Ottawa Montreal Meetings with U.I.C. Officials 7. $ 8.25 Ottawa Belleville Meetings with U.I.C. Officials 8. $ 93.25 Ottawa Vancouver Meetings with U.I.C. Officials 9. $ 59.00 Ottawa Montreal Meetings with U.I.C. Officials 2(b)-1975 1. $ 73.80 Ottawa Quebec City Manager's Conference D. J. Steele D. J. Steele2. $171.45 Ottawa Toronto Budget Meeting D. J. Steele D. J. Steele3. $ 21.48 Ottawa Winnipeg Regional Comptroller's Conference D. J. Steele D. J. Steele4.$ 19.00 Ottawa Winnipeg National Managers Conference G. Cousineau G. Cousineau

1. In the years immediately following World War II, for each year of their existence, what was the complete statistical breakdown of (a) the farm worker

(b) the track worker (c) other similar programmes?

2. For each year of duration and in each category, what (a) were the numbers participating (b) was the destination in Canada and the length of time stayed at the original destination?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. (a), (b) and (c) Statistics in the form requested are not

available. The annual statistical reports do contain statistics on immigrants whose intended employment is agriculture but no specific reference is shown regarding "farm workers", "track workers" programmes or other similar programmes. Information concerning the movement of farm workers from the Netherlands to Canada can be located in the annual reports of the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the years immediately following World War II.

2. (a) and (b) Not applicable.

August 4, 1977

Order Paper Questions

LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTRE FOR ARMED FORCES Question, No. 2,147-Mr. Brisco:

1. What is the present status of the new French and English language Training Centre for the Armed Forces?

2. Were the projected costs for the Centre set at $88,000,000 and, if so, have the projected costs increased, or do they remain the same?

Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):

1.

The megastructure for the Canadian Forces language training and recruit school is now approximately 17 per cent complete and it is anticipated it will be completed in the 1979/80 fiscal year. When completed this facility will house approximately 1600 language students and 760 recruits during peak periods. In addition there will be 513 both military and civilian permanent teaching and training staff plus 170 administrative support personnel.

2. The estimated costs for the project were $87,861,000 but, are now estimated to be $96,600,000.

1. What are the amounts by department, agency or commission, that the Department of Public Works sets down as accommodation costs to be carried in the 1977-78 Estimates?

2. In each case, what is the (a) total square footage utilized (b) percentage change in the (i) area utilized in the past year (ii) amount carried?

Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):

1. The

estimates of the Department of Public Works are not prepared by building up the cost of accommodation by occupancy. Accordingly, the accommodation costs carried in the 1977-78 Main Estimates for the Department of Public Works cannot be detailed by department, agency and commission.

2. (a) and (b) (i) departmental records identify only the amount of space allocated to a client at a point of time. We do not have information as to what use they would make of space, i.e., utilization, (b) (ii) As indicated in the reply to part 1 this information is not available.

In each of the past five years, how much has been carried in the Estimates of the Department of Public Works for (a) the Post Office construction programme (b) other Post Office accommodation costs?

Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):

(a) For

the years 1972-73 through 1976-77 the actual costs incurred and funded from the DPW accommodation (capital) program specifically for the Post Office Department are as follows: 1972-73, $9,947,792; 1973-74, $17,955,383; 1974-75,

$29,852,882; 1975-76, $53,892,263; 1976-77, $74,508,996. Total: $186,157,316. (b) The Department of Public Works does not prepare estimates for its operating programs by forecasting expenditures for each department or agency which will use its space, nor does it maintain a record of historical costs incurred on a departmental/agency basis. Accordingly no figures can be provided for the costs to operate the accommodation utilized by the Post Office.

1. Following the transfer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in fles-de-la-Madeleine from the Maritime Region to the Quebec Region, was there a one week delay in the payment of benefits and, if so, what was the cost of (a) overtime (b) private messenger services (c) air mail (d) others?

2. Are these special measures still in effect today and (a) if not, on what date were they stopped (b) if so, are the beneficiaries still entitled to forward their 31-01 forms on Thursdays?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. Yes. (a) The Commission cannot isolate the cost of overtime. (b) $16.50 per day. (c) Nil. (d) Nil.

2. These special measures are still in effect today, but the beneficiaries are not required to forward their 31-01 forms on Thursdays.

1. (a) Before (b) since Mr. Jean-Marie Allard's arrival in Montreal in an acting capacity, then as Director of Public Relations for the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Quebec, what was the value of the contracts signed with Studio 2 plus 2 for the (i) Quebec Regional Office (ii) National Office and how many are uncompleted?

2. For each contract, were tenders called and, if so, who were the bidders?

3. Since the denunciation by the Social Credit Party of the Olympic-oriented Posters, was the Director of Information Services, Mr. Jean Labossiere demoted and (a) if so, was it because of the denunciation (b) if not, for what reason was he not demoted?

Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):

1. (a) Nil. (b) (i) $66,070.12; (ii) $13,500. All of these contracts have been completed.

2. Tenders were not called as all contracts were for an amount of less than $15,000 (Treasury Board guidelines).

3. (a) Yes, he has been demoted, but the demotion was not related to the denunciation, (b) Not applicable.

1. Did the government cease operating a book store at 640 St. Catherine Street West, Montreal, Quebec and, if so (a) on what date (b) is the premises now vacant and still rented by the government (c) what are the terms of the lease including the (i) expiry date (ii) monthly rental (iii) annual rental (iv) details of any escalation clauses contained in the lease, if any (v) name and address of the landlord, etc.?

2. If the premises remain vacant until the expiry of the lease, what will be the total amount of money paid by the government?

Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):

1. Yes; (a) November 5, 1976; (b) The premises have been occupied since May 18, 1977 by the Department of the Secretary of State for the organizational activities related to Canada week. Further, the Department of Public Works has a firm commit-

August 4, 1977

merit from the Post Office Department, Philatelic Services to occupy these premises commencing August 15, 1977. (c)(i) September 30, 1981; (ii) $13,958.85 basic monthly rent; (iii) $167,506.24 basic annual rent; (iv) There are three escalation clauses contained in lease: (a) Tax escalation clause with a "base year" defined as the tax year, 1972-73 and the "proportionate share" being 5.14 per cent, (b) Operating costs escalation clause with a "base year" defined as February 1, 1973 to January 31, 1974 and the "proportionate share" being 5.14 per cent, (c) Cost of living escalation clause "of the cost of living index, as determined by Statistics Canada should show any increase on October 1, 1972, and any subsequent anniversary date during the term of this lease, above the cost of living index as at October 1, 1971, the rent will be increased in a proportionate amount and will become due and payable as increased rent." (v) Oxford Development Group Limited, Shell Tower Building, 1255 University Street, Suite 111, Montreal, Quebec. H3B 3A8.

2. Not applicable.

1. With reference to the answer by the Minister of Transport to Question No. 785, part 3(f), was a memo issued on July 20, 1976 and signed by H. R. Finley, Director, Aviation Safety Bureau, Department of Transport and, if so, did this

memo state in part that "....disciplinary or punitive action against the

involved controller would not be propitious at this time" and if the matter had nothing to do with the language question in the air, what is the full meaning and intent of the words quoted?

2. How does the Minister of Transport reconcile his negative answer with the statement contained in the memo signed by Mr. Finley?

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):

1. Yes. An inter-branch memorandum was prepared and signed by H. R. Finley, Director, Aviation Safety Bureau, Department of Transport on July 20, 1976 addressed to the Director, Air Traffic Services, Department of Transport. The memorandum did state in part that: " . .. disciplinary or punitive action against the involved controller would not be propitious at this time". As reported in the answer to question No. 785, part 3(e): "the controller involved was severely reprimanded on July 9, 1976, and warned that a further occurrence would not be tolerated". In recognition that the errant controller had already been severely admonished by the unit chief the memorandum in part acknowledged that the action taken was considered, by senior management, as appropriate and sufficient under the circumstances.

2. The answer to this question is contained in (1) above.