The Chairman:

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.

The Chairman:

I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil to be as brief as possible.

Mr. 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.

The Chairman:

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.

Miss 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.

Mr. 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.

Miss 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.

Mr. 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.

Go ahead.

Mr. 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?

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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?

Mr. 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?